Religion Versus Science

[cuchulain]

You realize, Dan, that the obligation doesn't exist to disprove religion, right? The whole proving a negative thing? Of course, that being said, I can understand perfectly believing in something without evidence, until evidence comes along to prove otherwise, and since there is no evidence to prove otherwise, I agree, you don't have to change your views whatsoever. However, and knowing you as I have come to on this forum, I think you will grant us the equal right of not having to believe, since there is no direct provable evidence that the bible is correct on all counts, either. I think the problem comes in when religious groups mass together and try to force their opinions on others, claiming they are complete fact, then asking others to disprove that they are fact, and when it cannot be disproven, well...you can see how it goes. I think here lately I have come to the understanding that there are certain individuals and groups in the world who just don't make any sense to anyone but themselves, but I have also realized that it impacts me very little if at all and I have no obligation to disprove anything, so I just let people be as they will. Kind of the definition of "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink", in my opinion. In essence, the problematic people of religion are those who push it, and by pushing so hard create Anti-theists, and then rail against the Anti-theists, as if they hadn't come about as a direct response to the zealots. They create their own problem, and then create their own entity to rail against, their own cause, if you will. Of course, the same can be said of atheists, on occasion. Sometimes a person pushes the faithful so much that they turn that faithful into a zealot, instead of just a friendly believer.

Edited April 29, 2015 by cuchulain

[panpareil]

My problem with creationism is, what good is it. What can you do with the knowledge if it is proven to be true. The only thing I can think of that could get accomplished with the tool of creationism is proselytization for the worship of god, or soliciting attendance and tithing to a church run in his name. I just do not see any additional social gain then already exists now. From my point of view, even if true is is a trivial piece of information like angels dancing on the head of a pin. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am open on this.

Science has its own problems. Science happens in institutions who's main interest is acquiring funding. The source of funding usually stipulates what research is done and what papers are published. The main funding for science in our time is now comes from the state, so naturally the direction of research is politically driven. Because of this there is now an almost religious bent to certain research.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1. We agree.

2. Same as above.

3. Wasn't talking specifically about creationism, but okay. We still agree. Which also proves my point about followers being lost due to relevance.

Would you continue to follow doctrine if facts prove against it? Just saying.

No. Show me proof that I'm in error -- that God exists. I can change if the proof is good. Scripture is not proof. Of course, a working definition of God would help. Nothing quite like arguing the existence of something which is not defined.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

No. Show me proof that I'm in error -- that God exists. I can change if the proof is good. Scripture is not proof. Of course, a working definition of God would help. Nothing quite like arguing the existence of something which is not defined.

I think you may be confused. My argument was that unless a church changes its doctrine according to facts that reveal themselves through science or other means, it would lose its relevance to its followers. Not that God does, or doesn't exist.

Example, and only that, many christian churches see homosexuality as a choice, whereas science has presented its case as it being genetic. Just so this thread doesn't now get bogged down on that issue, I'm certain there are many similar issues, this was just the most prevalent.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Keystrikr

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I think you may be confused. My argument was that unless a church changes its doctrine according to facts that reveal themselves through science or other means, it would lose its relevance to its followers. Not that God does, or doesn't exist.

Example, and only that, many christian churches see homosexuality as a choice, whereas science has presented its case as it being genetic. Just so this thread doesn't now get bogged down on that issue, I'm certain there are many similar issues, this was just the most prevalent.

For purposes of this discussion, I think it might be more useful to examine Fundamentalism. Without a literal Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit; there is no fall and no need for the Redemption or Redeemer -- hence the Creationist opposition to evolution. This gives us the conflict between Fundamentalism and science.

There may be a way out of this conflict. I don't see it. Still, Christianity has made peace with Copernicus and Galileo. That conflict was hot for a while.

[Key]

For purposes of this discussion, I think it might be more useful to examine Fundamentalism. Without a literal Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit; there is no fall and no need for the Redemption or Redeemer -- hence the Creationist opposition to evolution. This gives us the conflict between Fundamentalism and science.

There may be a way out of this conflict. I don't see it. Still, Christianity has made peace with Copernicus and Galileo. That conflict was hot for a while.

True that.

Today's believers may be more fickle than in days of past. Information is more widely shared, argued, believed, or disbelieved. Churches must accommodate for that and be clear and consistent with their message, while also acknowledging changes made by scientific discovery.

[cuchulain]

Then you have the impetus to create differing mythologies, differing methods. Hence, the many branches of Christianity. If it were one perfect message, why would there be so many interpretations? There are new religions popping up all over the place these days. Who is to say that one of those might not do away with some of these basic flaws, as science sees them, and incorporate a little reality into their new religion? And that it might take off, becoming a predominant faith? Doubtful, of course, with the fundamentalists I have encountered, but still one can hope. Kind of reminds me of a family friend. He was a minister, I forget which denomination of Christianity, one that didn't believe in divorce. He performed the wedding for me and my first wife. When I divorced her, he shunned me pretty much. A couple of years ago, he got divorced. Convenience sometimes expedites understanding.

[Dan56]

You realize, Dan, that the obligation doesn't exist to disprove religion, right? The whole proving a negative thing? Of course, that being said, I can understand perfectly believing in something without evidence, until evidence comes along to prove otherwise, and since there is no evidence to prove otherwise, I agree, you don't have to change your views whatsoever. However, and knowing you as I have come to on this forum, I think you will grant us the equal right of not having to believe, since there is no direct provable evidence that the bible is correct on all counts, either. I think the problem comes in when religious groups mass together and try to force their opinions on others, claiming they are complete fact, then asking others to disprove that they are fact, and when it cannot be disproven, well...you can see how it goes. I think here lately I have come to the understanding that there are certain individuals and groups in the world who just don't make any sense to anyone but themselves, but I have also realized that it impacts me very little if at all and I have no obligation to disprove anything, so I just let people be as they will. Kind of the definition of "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink", in my opinion. In essence, the problematic people of religion are those who push it, and by pushing so hard create Anti-theists, and then rail against the Anti-theists, as if they hadn't come about as a direct response to the zealots. They create their own problem, and then create their own entity to rail against, their own cause, if you will. Of course, the same can be said of atheists, on occasion. Sometimes a person pushes the faithful so much that they turn that faithful into a zealot, instead of just a friendly believer.

Absolutely... As I've said before, belief is a choice, it can't be mandated. And I agree that pushing religion on people like ISIS is trying to do, just creates a negative reaction. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton's 3rd law)

[cuchulain]

I can understand belief as a choice completely, especially in Christian circles, where free will is a consideration. In my own personal beliefs, I choose what to follow, what to disallow, and what I think might be hogwash altogether. I would hazard that it is much the same with many other belief systems, if a person follows some particular denomination and disagrees with one of its ideas, they have limited compunctions at best about changing it and forming a new branch. Eventually, such becomes watering down the original, of course, because over the centuries different ideas get mixed in, some get thrown out, and then you have something that doesn't look much like what it started as. I wonder what the disciples of Christ would think of Christianity today, in its many forms, allowing of course that Christ lived and had disciples. I wonder how much the original messages have changed over the centuries. I know there are some, such as Dan, who believe the message remained relatively intact due to divine influence, and I would be silly not to allow them that belief. I just wonder how that jives with the various formats Christianity has taken in the here and now, some of which contradict each other, if not the bible. Two Christian organizations that have conflicting beliefs cannot both be correct, can they?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I can understand belief as a choice completely, especially in Christian circles, where free will is a consideration. In my own personal beliefs, I choose what to follow, what to disallow, and what I think might be hogwash altogether. I would hazard that it is much the same with many other belief systems, if a person follows some particular denomination and disagrees with one of its ideas, they have limited compunctions at best about changing it and forming a new branch. Eventually, such becomes watering down the original, of course, because over the centuries different ideas get mixed in, some get thrown out, and then you have something that doesn't look much like what it started as. I wonder what the disciples of Christ would think of Christianity today, in its many forms, allowing of course that Christ lived and had disciples. I wonder how much the original messages have changed over the centuries. I know there are some, such as Dan, who believe the message remained relatively intact due to divine influence, and I would be silly not to allow them that belief. I just wonder how that jives with the various formats Christianity has taken in the here and now, some of which contradict each other, if not the bible. Two Christian organizations that have conflicting beliefs cannot both be correct, can they?

It depends on the belief. If there is no recourse to external evidence or proof -- they can be equally right -- or equally wrong. That is the problem with "beliefs" and "faith."

Edited May 1, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

Two Christian organizations that have conflicting beliefs cannot both be correct, can they?

No, they can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.. Its one reason that I'm nondenominational, I personally don't make a religion over following Christ.. I believe the bible is essentially non-changing, the teachings of Christ and his commandments have not changed, but various religious denominations have added their own prophets and books, which inevitably spin the simple truth. Seventh-day Adventist rely on Ellen White, LDS on Joseph Smith, Catholics on the Pope, etc. Many endorse the rapture theory of Margaret MacDonald or ramble in tongues, while others whorship the sabbath instead of Christ.. I'm leary of any who ignor what's written and invent their own religion; "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19 KJV).

[Key]

I can understand belief as a choice completely, especially in Christian circles, where free will is a consideration. In my own personal beliefs, I choose what to follow, what to disallow, and what I think might be hogwash altogether. I would hazard that it is much the same with many other belief systems, if a person follows some particular denomination and disagrees with one of its ideas, they have limited compunctions at best about changing it and forming a new branch. Eventually, such becomes watering down the original, of course, because over the centuries different ideas get mixed in, some get thrown out, and then you have something that doesn't look much like what it started as. I wonder what the disciples of Christ would think of Christianity today, in its many forms, allowing of course that Christ lived and had disciples. I wonder how much the original messages have changed over the centuries. I know there are some, such as Dan, who believe the message remained relatively intact due to divine influence, and I would be silly not to allow them that belief. I just wonder how that jives with the various formats Christianity has taken in the here and now, some of which contradict each other, if not the bible. Two Christian organizations that have conflicting beliefs cannot both be correct, can they?

Who's to say they, themselves, didn't alter in some way the principles that Jesus taught? As supposedly no one else was closer, no one outside the sphere of their group would really know what he said and taught them at the time. (Assuming, of course, they all existed. Which I am inclined to think.) We only have their words for it.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Keystrikr

[mererdog]

I'm leary of any who ignor what's written and invent their own religion; "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19 KJV).

Correct me if I am wrong here. The Book of Revelations was a stand alone text. So wouldn't the prohibition against adding things apply as much to the testimony of Paul or Matthew as to the testimony of latter day people? Edited May 2, 2015 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Who's to say they, themselves, didn't alter in some way the principles that Jesus taught? As supposedly no one else was closer, no one outside the sphere of their group would really know what he said and taught them at the time. (Assuming, of course, they all existed. Which I am inclined to think.) We only have their words for it.

Not even that. Only the words which are attributed to them. Even these have been changed, inserted and mistranslated.

[cuchulain]

I can understand all of the above responses, and I guess it all boils down in the end to faith, eh? There is very little evidence that Jesus as a person actually existed, beyond the typical 'Many historians agree...', that is. For me that isn't enough, but I can appreciate that it is plenty for other people. Science seems more concrete to me, with its acceptance of change, at least these days, and its basis on experiment and observation. I suppose that is the fundamental difference, in the end, between religion and science. Religion accepts on faith, and science accepts on observation. Hypothesis is, of course, unproven, or it would be called theory. But science takes what it knows from other things that it knows, and builds. Religion seems to say that the world is this way, and leave it at that. Just my views of course.

[Dan56]

Correct me if I am wrong here. That's a full-time job The Book of Revelations was a stand alone text. So wouldn't the prohibition against adding things apply as much to the testimony of Paul or Matthew as to the testimony of latter day people?

The first century apostolic writings of Paul and Matthew were inspired, I don't believe the testimony of latter day people who add, subtract, or dilute what was inspired and preserved is comparable. All Christians expound on what's written, but in my opinion, changing it by adding new material is a no no.

[cuchulain]

what if the new material is genuinely inspired, though? And how could a reasonable person tell the difference?

Edited May 2, 2015 by cuchulain

[Brother Kaman]

I can understand all of the above responses, and I guess it all boils down in the end to faith, eh? There is very little evidence that Jesus as a person actually existed, beyond the typical 'Many historians agree...', that is. For me that isn't enough, but I can appreciate that it is plenty for other people. Science seems more concrete to me, with its acceptance of change, at least these days, and its basis on experiment and observation. I suppose that is the fundamental difference, in the end, between religion and science. Religion accepts on faith, and science accepts on observation. Hypothesis is, of course, unproven, or it would be called theory. But science takes what it knows from other things that it knows, and builds. Religion seems to say that the world is this way, and leave it at that. Just my views of course.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is widely accepted by nearly all scientist, not just physicist, and states that reality is relative to the observer.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Brother Kaman

[cuchulain]

concepts introduced by the theory of relativity: measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of the observer(not the actual observer); space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other; the speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another. the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the light source.

That is a summary of course. Really though, there is nothing about reality being relative to the observer, especially when you consider the speed of light being the same regardless of the observers velocity. It is a lot about motion, not reality itself, in my opinion and in the opinion of Wikipedia. Various quantities are relative to the velocity of the observer, not the observer themselves. Reality doesn't change just because someone else thinks it does, in other words. Physical measurements might change, dependent on several factors, including the velocity of the people observing, and so if two people are observing at different speeds, then yes the numbers would change in relativity to their velocities, yes? In other words, if I am running at 5 miles per hour, and you are running at 8 miles per hour, and a bicycle goes by at fifteen miles per hour, I observe in relation to me that it is moving at ten miles per hour, while you observe that in relation to you it is moving at seven miles per hour. Still, regardless of our perceptions, the bicycle is moving at fifteen miles per hour in relation to everything else which we view as immobile.

Edited May 2, 2015 by cuchulain

[Brother Kaman]

concepts introduced by the theory of relativity: measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of the observer(not the actual observer); space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other; the speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another. the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the light source.

That is a summary of course. Really though, there is nothing about reality being relative to the observer, especially when you consider the speed of light being the same regardless of the observers velocity. It is a lot about motion, not reality itself, in my opinion and in the opinion of Wikipedia. Various quantities are relative to the velocity of the observer, not the observer themselves. Reality doesn't change just because someone else thinks it does, in other words. Physical measurements might change, dependent on several factors, including the velocity of the people observing, and so if two people are observing at different speeds, then yes the numbers would change in relativity to their velocities, yes? In other words, if I am running at 5 miles per hour, and you are running at 8 miles per hour, and a bicycle goes by at fifteen miles per hour, I observe in relation to me that it is moving at ten miles per hour, while you observe that in relation to you it is moving at seven miles per hour. Still, regardless of our perceptions, the bicycle is moving at fifteen miles per hour in relation to everything else which we view as immobile.

Or, everything is moving past us at a speed relative to each runner and bicyclist.