Can science and religion mix?
Can Religion and Science Mix?
0
jenslyn wrote...
You can mix science and religion.The bible and other holy books has to be interpretted to fit with the world today, otherwise several religions would still be advertising slavery, which they obviously do not do anymore.
And since any holy book or scripture has to interpreted, you can let religion "take over" when ever science does not have a definitive answer to something.
This way they mix very well. The only criteria for mixing the two is really that you cannot reject science for religion, rather you have to update your interpretation of your holy books to be consistent with current knowledge (science).
phail.
You cannot fully interpret the bible and those 'other' holy books fully.
You can only interpret parts for your own use that would fit in today's world.
You'd also be ignoring the rest of what the other messages are, despite being old.
But that's morals anyway haha.
Another phail. You can reject science for religion. And vice-versa. And the most prudent example of this argument would be creationism. For example:
Catholics/Christians believe that God created the world and the universe. For science, it was the Big Bang theory. But, all scientists accepted the concept of a 'universal,unifying force', but not under the definition of 'god'.
There's also the incident over 'evolution being taught in schools' in the US a few decades back, as it was deeply offending to religious groups even to today.
Do you really think science and religion can mix when it comes down to human interpretation? Some things yes. But for others....
0
EmiyaKiritsugu wrote...
Spoiler:
phail.
You cannot fully interpret the bible and those 'other' holy books fully.
You can only interpret parts for your own use that would fit in today's world.
You'd also be ignoring the rest of what the other messages are, despite being old.
There is no fail in my argument, which clearly states that the messages should be interpreted in light of the world of today. All messages and morals can be interpreted using a more modern view. There are mentions of slaves and how you should treat them in several hole scriptures, but looking at them today, what you can take out of them is that you should treat your employees nicely and with dignity. That is INTERPRETATION using the facts of society today, and NOT IGNORING.
So you fail in reading my argument. Next time just ask for clarification instead.
EmiyaKiritsugu wrote...
Another phail. You can reject science for religion. And vice-versa. And the most prudent example of this argument would be creationism. For example: Catholics/Christians believe that God created the world and the universe. For science, it was the Big Bang theory. But, all scientists accepted the concept of a 'universal,unifying force', but not under the definition of 'god'.
There's also the incident over 'evolution being taught in schools' in the US a few decades back, as it was deeply offending to religious groups even to today.
Again you just fail at reading...
I clearly state that for my argument to work, you are not allowed to reject science for religion, I never say it cannot be done.. because it is obvious from all the stupid religious fanatics that it most definitely can be done (religion is fine with me, fanatics are not).
But your example actually shows what I was talking about with
"religion "take over" when ever science does not have a definitive answer to something."
The Big bang is a THEORY, that many scientist subscribe to, but it is still a theory. I think it is perfectly valid to believe something else, since there are no definitive answers to how the universe started. And religion has another clear advantage in your example: who made the big bang, or who started it and why did it happen? an obvious answer could be god, or it could be something else. The point is that we do not know.
EmiyaKiritsugu wrote...
Do you really think science and religion can mix when it comes down to human interpretation? Some things yes. But for others....Clearly I do believe that they can co-exist, but I do acknowledge that it is hard, since now a days it seem like people either have to be fanatically religious or atheists. But I do believe that you can have the two co-exist as long as you accept the facts of science and only let religion explain the things not proven.
As a last note. I believe that religion is best suited as a guidebook for behavior and moral, so stories in holy books are there to prove a point, not to be taken as literal facts, as done by some fanatics.
0
rooploop wrote...
No , because they're contradicting each other.It's like trying to mix water and oil with a spoon.
Water and oil can be mix, just degassing the water and then they can mix.
If water and oil can be mix, then religion and science can co-exist, but the two will have to have mutual understanding. Extremist of both can stone each other to death. People who don't believe in changes, will never able view to something in a grand view.
A word can brought a thousand meaning, this mean any word is open to interpretation. You can see thousand meaning just a passage from a bible. That does mean something in the bible can be related to sciences.
Even scientist today still have a hard time to determine The Big Bang theory, the unknown is still a vast thing to explore, we should be a single minded entity. Maybe there is existence of God, maybe there is not. We cannot say it's never, cause there are infinite answer, just as there is infinite question.
Sure science is the truth, but the truth doesn't always shows with the fact and data.
0
Ieryuuda wrote...
rooploop wrote...
No , because they're contradicting each other.It's like trying to mix water and oil with a spoon.
Water and oil can be mix, just degassing the water and then they can mix.
If water and oil can be mix, then religion and science can co-exist, but the two will have to have mutual understanding. Extremist of both can stone each other to death. People who don't believe in changes, will never able view to something in a grand view.
A word can brought a thousand meaning, this mean any word is open to interpretation. You can see thousand meaning just a passage from a bible. That does mean something in the bible can be related to sciences.
Even scientist today still have a hard time to determine The Big Bang theory, the unknown is still a vast thing to explore, we should be a single minded entity. Maybe there is existence of God, maybe there is not. We cannot say it's never, cause there are infinite answer, just as there is infinite question.
Sure science is the truth, but the truth doesn't always shows with the fact and data.
Very nicely put.
To add to your last sentence: it often happens that the proven and agreed upon "truth" is proven false when our understanding of something grows, therefore the truth of science can easily just be the "current opinion" of science. To fully trust science can be dangerous, no matter how well proved their findings are
0
Ieryuuda wrote...
rooploop wrote...
No , because they're contradicting each other.It's like trying to mix water and oil with a spoon.
Water and oil can be mix, just degassing the water and then they can mix.
I never knew a spoon can "De-gas" water.
Anyway , since i'm not that smart good with words , i'm just going to shut up.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
jenslyn wrote...
To add to your last sentence: it often happens that the proven and agreed upon "truth" is proven false when our understanding of something grows, therefore the truth of science can easily just be the "current opinion" of science. To fully trust science can be dangerous, no matter how well proved their findings areAt the very least those "current opinion" are much more credible compared to some stuff that depends on retrofitting to even be accepted. Forget about testing the hypothesis and all.
0
This seems like an extremely touchy subject so I won't say much.
I am religious and am sort of scientific as well. However, because of how I have been raised (Filipinos you'll understand), I can't ignore or reject religion, and now, nor do I want to. I don't know if they can co-exist or not, but for me, it works out alright.
I am religious and am sort of scientific as well. However, because of how I have been raised (Filipinos you'll understand), I can't ignore or reject religion, and now, nor do I want to. I don't know if they can co-exist or not, but for me, it works out alright.
0
Seems like people are really stuck on shouting out their stance on the subject rather than providing evidence, but I guess without two opposing sides a debate cannot take place, so it'll all works out somehow...
Nevertheless, it's interesting how people think of the concepts of either side as oil and water. The two are stable substances with unchanging properties; science and religion are not. They're ideas, both born from human imagination, only with different modus operandi. So I think it'll be more accurate to say that they're long lost dizygotic twins that are similar in personally and thought process, and yet is completely against one another in their opinions.
As one with some manner of scientific training, I can say that what has been said before is not entirely accurate regarding the science side. As I am not a expert in religion, I can only speculate as to how religion could adapt to or reject science. However, I do know of many scientist who are religous, whether to their own ideal of god, or to a major religion. Of course there are also those I know who completely reject any form of religion, opting to believe in only what they see in front of them.
But as good old Dr. Einstein once said: "The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience, is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, also has given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men."
Although opinions sometimes collide, without difference the world wouldn't move forward at all. Variation spurs development, and so our profound differences from one another despite being all humans is truthfully the best ability we as a species has.
As such, religion and science are only born from those differences in our thoughts. Those who err on the side of caution will not be swayed by the mystical aspects of existance itself, and will strive for more raw knowledge, while those of the more sensational side may feel compelled to be in awe of something that is in its whole much greater than ourselves, giving us a sense of belonging to this world. At its roots, both sides of the argument can be said to have been born from the curiousity and feelings of the humans who first gazed up at the sky and wondered "why are we here?"
Nevertheless, it's interesting how people think of the concepts of either side as oil and water. The two are stable substances with unchanging properties; science and religion are not. They're ideas, both born from human imagination, only with different modus operandi. So I think it'll be more accurate to say that they're long lost dizygotic twins that are similar in personally and thought process, and yet is completely against one another in their opinions.
As one with some manner of scientific training, I can say that what has been said before is not entirely accurate regarding the science side. As I am not a expert in religion, I can only speculate as to how religion could adapt to or reject science. However, I do know of many scientist who are religous, whether to their own ideal of god, or to a major religion. Of course there are also those I know who completely reject any form of religion, opting to believe in only what they see in front of them.
But as good old Dr. Einstein once said: "The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience, is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, also has given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men."
Although opinions sometimes collide, without difference the world wouldn't move forward at all. Variation spurs development, and so our profound differences from one another despite being all humans is truthfully the best ability we as a species has.
As such, religion and science are only born from those differences in our thoughts. Those who err on the side of caution will not be swayed by the mystical aspects of existance itself, and will strive for more raw knowledge, while those of the more sensational side may feel compelled to be in awe of something that is in its whole much greater than ourselves, giving us a sense of belonging to this world. At its roots, both sides of the argument can be said to have been born from the curiousity and feelings of the humans who first gazed up at the sky and wondered "why are we here?"
0
The thing is that science and water are truly immiscible, like oil and water. All the good will in the world won’t fill the gulf that divides the two.
For the purposes of this conversation, let’s just imagine that science and water are two approaches to answering the same questions: who (why) we are, how (why) the planet exists, how (why) should we behave. In the end though, they're both trying to find out the truth about things. Sure, some may argue that religion provides consolation to the soul and a reason for living, but so do drugs, sex and alcohol so that point is slightly moot.
The problem is that religion has absolutely no criteria for validating what is true and what is not - the only hoops a religious theory must jump through are:
1) How well does it agree with <insert>?
1) How much do I like it?
3) How much power can be gained from it? (This may seem like a moot point now, but look back at the Middle Ages where Catholic priests adapted religious verses on whims in order to gain favour)
Science, on the other hand, presents a far more arduous hurdle. For a scientific theory to be judged plausible (but never true - it is impossible to deem most scientific hypotheses true) it has to follow the principles of the scientific method, which has been used to build up such a huge body of knowledge that we span seas with bridges and send probes to Mars.
In the end, they are completely irreconcilable because one is based on the process of logic, and the other one purely on human gullibility. No prizes guessing which is which.
For the purposes of this conversation, let’s just imagine that science and water are two approaches to answering the same questions: who (why) we are, how (why) the planet exists, how (why) should we behave. In the end though, they're both trying to find out the truth about things. Sure, some may argue that religion provides consolation to the soul and a reason for living, but so do drugs, sex and alcohol so that point is slightly moot.
The problem is that religion has absolutely no criteria for validating what is true and what is not - the only hoops a religious theory must jump through are:
1) How well does it agree with <insert>?
1) How much do I like it?
3) How much power can be gained from it? (This may seem like a moot point now, but look back at the Middle Ages where Catholic priests adapted religious verses on whims in order to gain favour)
Science, on the other hand, presents a far more arduous hurdle. For a scientific theory to be judged plausible (but never true - it is impossible to deem most scientific hypotheses true) it has to follow the principles of the scientific method, which has been used to build up such a huge body of knowledge that we span seas with bridges and send probes to Mars.
In the end, they are completely irreconcilable because one is based on the process of logic, and the other one purely on human gullibility. No prizes guessing which is which.
0
The thing is, we're not discussion the validity of either one, but whether or not they can still peacefully co-exist now and well into the future. We've adapted pretty well for ourselves in the modern age if you consider how it was like way back. People were being put on trial for trying to discuss a theory, and some were even imprisoned.
Now we're doing relatively well, the level of violence involving religion is rather low in the developed countries. Of course, there's the whole Islamic extremism and the resultant terrorism to consider, but that does not generalize the religous. Overall, co-existance in relative peace has been achieved for some time now, so I see no reason why we must completely remove any trace of the mystical from humanity. Wouldn't that be the same as how the church had once tried to remove any trace of scientific discoveries that goes counter to its establish facts? Besides, having a bit of wonder in our lives wouldn't hurt, so as long as its done in appropriate amounts. The existance of religous scientists, who are happy, normal people, should show just how possible it can be to have co-existance.
Now we're doing relatively well, the level of violence involving religion is rather low in the developed countries. Of course, there's the whole Islamic extremism and the resultant terrorism to consider, but that does not generalize the religous. Overall, co-existance in relative peace has been achieved for some time now, so I see no reason why we must completely remove any trace of the mystical from humanity. Wouldn't that be the same as how the church had once tried to remove any trace of scientific discoveries that goes counter to its establish facts? Besides, having a bit of wonder in our lives wouldn't hurt, so as long as its done in appropriate amounts. The existance of religous scientists, who are happy, normal people, should show just how possible it can be to have co-existance.
0
The fact that Rbz is usually right all the time, but just HAS to be an asshole about it makes me cry in the pants.
0
x-gen wrote...
...they're long lost... twins...that are similar in...thought process...LOL!
x-gen wrote...
But as good old Dr. Einstein once said: "The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience, is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, also has given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men."Too bad he doesn't mean religious the way we understand it today as shown by his last two sentences. The way you use mystical later doesn't fit into what I think Einstein meant by mystical (although he seems to use it both ways). Removing religion is not removing "all traces of the mystical from humanity." Science itself deals with the mystical (i.e., the synonym, "mysterious"). And it's not like without religion there is no god.
jenslyn wrote...
The bible and other holy books has to be interpretted to fit with the world today, otherwise several religions would still be advertising slavery, which they obviously do not do anymore.jenslyn wrote...
but looking at them today, what you can take out of them is that you should treat your employees nicely and with dignityLOL! Retrofitting to make God say whatever you want him to say. Nice.
Leviticus 20:13 wrote...
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Well, what that really means is, errrrrrrrrrr, hmm, let's see, gays are becoming a bit more accepted today, sooooooo, what that really means is, don't kill the gays--as it would be inconsistent with the first commandment hurr hurr--but treat them to parties and let them have fashion shows here and there."
It's nice when god has you doing most of the work for him.
jenslyn wrote...
To fully trust science can be dangerous, no matter how well proved their findings are.Any thinking person who trusts science, would, when scientists either make and addendum or an amendment to something, change their views based on what the new changes were.
BigLundi wrote...
The fact that Rbz is usually right all the time, but just HAS to be an asshole about it makes me cry in the pants.As shown by my previous responses in this post, you'll be crying by the time you get to the bottom.
0
I'm an Athiest, so it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that there is no God and you rot in the ground after you die. Cool eh?
0
(To RBZ)
Hmm... well, your points are great of course, but again, we're not discussing the validity of either one. All I'm saying is you can have a functional society that has both the religous and the scientific, without any significant violence resulting. Of course there will always be extremists on either side for as long as humanity exist, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there(and then promptly burn it with an industrial strength flamethrower). Oh... and being scientific and being religous is not mutually exclusive as not all scientists are atheists.
Hmm... well, your points are great of course, but again, we're not discussing the validity of either one. All I'm saying is you can have a functional society that has both the religous and the scientific, without any significant violence resulting. Of course there will always be extremists on either side for as long as humanity exist, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there(and then promptly burn it with an industrial strength flamethrower). Oh... and being scientific and being religous is not mutually exclusive as not all scientists are atheists.
0
x-gen wrote...
Hmm... well, your points are great of course, but again, we're not discussing the validity of either one.I wasn't discussing the validity of either one in my response to your statement.
x-gen wrote...
Oh... and being scientific and being religous is not mutually exclusive as not all scientists are atheists.I know.
Which brings me to my correction. In order to be consistent with the language I use and my beliefs, and for the sake of intellectual integrity, I change my response to: Sure, science and religion can mix (and by that I mean religious people accepting science and not science accepting religious claims, which will never happen), but I highly doubt that they will. Of course, since there are many different religions, some of them might not be contradicted by recent scientific knowledge, and they'll go along with the scientific community. Then there are those religious beliefs which I think are hopeless. Young earth creationfags, for example. I also don't think Islam (a.k.a., allallallallahfags) will mix with science. If the kuran is contradicted in some way, violence is the first thing that's going to go through their overly pious minds.
0
ashcrimson wrote...
Religion can say the earth is the center of the universe or is carried on the back of a giant galactic turtle, science proves its not like that... how can such coexist? Unless you are willing to accept that what religion tells you is not 100% true and accurate? But is this allowed, isnt the word of god absolute...?
And for us to talk about this seriously, we cant jsut focus on Christianity, we have to accept into the debate the other religions with serious followers. Its not just Christianity + science afterall right
@the underlined bit
yes some things have been proven by science but many have not been proven because straight from scientists mouths is that matter can not be created or destroyed if it cant be created then where did the beginning come from??? were did the material for the big bang come from??? how is it that humans are the superior life form even though we are physically weak and lack fur for cold winters why aren't all animals esp the ones that have been around far longer be more advanced then us?? why are humans so smart??? did we just get REALLY REALLY lucky?
@the red letters
first the bible is 2000 years old second only parts of the bible are the actual words of God or Jesus most of them are stories with morals like David v Goliath and stuff from people like Paul who hated sex lol etc so no not the whole bible is the word of god i believe what science can "prove" but i believe in God and Jesus for the basic facts that science cant prove the truly important stuff and cant back up all of its claims
that's my point of view
0
seanamus wrote...
how is it that humans are the superior life formWho the hell is even claiming that? Meat eaters? Since we're in the context of evolution, are evolutionary biologists saying that? No, I think not (at least those who know what they're talking about).
seanamus wrote...
why aren't all animals esp the ones that have been around far longer be more advanced then us??They evolved differently.
seanamus wrote...
why are humans so smart??? did we just get REALLY REALLY lucky?Yes. It's a bottom up construction. Homo Sapiens just happened to be "built" the right way, enough for them to exhibit intelligence higher than all other animals.
0
Being a student of the biological science field, I want to take this in a new direction. How do you guys view the current theory of evolution? (note: not Darwin, current)
I just wonder how people think of it and why they think that way, because I personally know it's just a theory made in an attempt to explain the huge amount of different lifeforms on the planet, and it seems to be working pretty good up to this point. However, some people attack it and say it is wrong without even attempting to understand it first, so I'm wondering how a community of thoughtful and mature individuals will think of this subject.
I just wonder how people think of it and why they think that way, because I personally know it's just a theory made in an attempt to explain the huge amount of different lifeforms on the planet, and it seems to be working pretty good up to this point. However, some people attack it and say it is wrong without even attempting to understand it first, so I'm wondering how a community of thoughtful and mature individuals will think of this subject.
0
x-gen wrote...
Being a student of the biological science field, I want to take this in a new direction. How do you guys view the current theory of evolution? (note: not Darwin, current)I just wonder how people think of it and why they think that way, because I personally know it's just a theory made in an attempt to explain the huge amount of different lifeforms on the planet, and it seems to be working pretty good up to this point. However, some people attack it and say it is wrong without even attempting to understand it first, so I'm wondering how a community of thoughtful and mature individuals will think of this subject.
The theory does explain how did we really come from, and human is a prideful being.
Human will sees it as a contradiction to the fact they were once bacteria in the giant ocean.
The truths can sometime be misleading, but to understand it better will give an infinite possibility to adapt to this ever changing universe.
For me, life itself is a mystery to be explore. I can accept the theory that we may come from a single cell organism and conquer the four corner of the earth. Evolution will strive to make us to adapt to ever changing world. From my point of view, evolution is god's way to make us to survive in this world.
