Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Religion AND Science: Middlegound possible?

religion science rleigion vs science darwinism creationism dinoasaurs

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1    Orphalesion

Orphalesion

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2014
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:40 PM

Hey-o

I usually don't subscribe to forums, yet I feel that I don't really have anybody in RL anymore I can talk this over with rationally as most of my friends either fall into the 'Religion Only" camp, the "Science Only" camp or the "That's boring man, let's play LOL!" camp. And if the internet can offer me access to a larger, maybe more diverse community, why not use that, right?

Basically I'm effing sick of this whole either or mentality when it comes to Science (particularly evolution and archaeology) and Religion, why does there have to be an either or? I grew up with both. I accepted that there is a God who created us just as easily as I accepted that, millions of years ago, dinosaurs roamed the Earth or that the Universe was billions of years old. Later I came up with a lot of, childlike theories to reconcile one with the other, one was that the Garden of Eden took place after the comet that killed the dinosaurs or after/during the Ice Age.
I always loved learning about faith and about many types of science (not a big fan of Math, Chemistry and Physics though) and find that they fulfil different needs for me,

Yet now I keep hearing "You can't be Christian unless you believe 100% in the Bible" or "You accept science and then take religion serious" etc.etc.etc.

Why not? That's like saying "You can't eat Vegetables and Meat, you have to choose for the rest of your life!" Why should I be forced to close myself to one source of thought to appreciate the other?
The funny thing is, this "either or" mentality appears to be a fairly recent trend, maybe a hundred years or so. Science and Religion used to love each other: Monks studied and copied ancient texts on maths and medicine, Popes acted as patrons for struggling scientists and there were even Christian Darwin societies.

And according to this article:

http://biologos.org/...ponse-to-darwin

all that "Young Earth" babble is more a pouting response to Darwinist Theories than any form of universely accepted doctrine.

I probably don't have to point out how unscientific Mr. Dawkin's rethoric is and that continuisly insulting everybody who disagrees with you is not a good way to make people take you seriously or consider your point of view. I'd even go as far as to theorize that Richard Dawkins is paid to act that way by a secret cabal of Religious Leaders to undermine proper scientists. Just like I think that those children's books that show Adam and Eve prancing aabout with dinosaurs are written by militant Atheists trying to make any form of Faith seem laughable to the masses. Not really, I'm not very into conspiracies, but that's just how laughable these "extreme" opinions seem to me.

I just find it very, very difficutl to dismiss the possibility that the Old Testament is little more than the legends, laws and poetry of the ancient Hebrews and that the New Testament has been severely tempered with in the last 2000 years or so (there's evidence for this, why are there 4 accounts of the life of Jesus if each of them is 100% true God's word? And don't forget the Apocrypta) Lutherans denounce Catholics for believing in the infallibility of a man (the Pope) yet they promote and defend the infallibility of the dozens of men who the Bible? Man, even a translation mistake can change meaning (Thanks, King James!)

Likewise, I find idea of everything. all of existence, life the universe etc. etc. etc. just being a massive happenstance very difficult to believe as well. So what if we can calculate models and theories on how we THINK the universe works? Who says we can process all the information? We can’t even see Ultraviolet and Infrared (except for a very lucky minority who apparently CAN see Ultraviolet) who knows what we might not even be able to sense with machines? Us completely understanding the universe is (in my eyes) like amoebas trying to understand the body of the blue whale that just swallowed them. We are helplessly failing about in the dark, hoping to connect the pieces of a puzzle with 10 trillion pieces.

Sorry about the rant. That is just something I wanted to get off my chest for a long time. And don’t just eat meat or vegetables. The human body needs a balanced diet. Don’t just follow Science or Faith, the human mind needs varied stimuli.
What do other people think?


#2    willowdreams

willowdreams

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Never let the facts get in the way of the truth- heard during an episode of 'Lie to Me' by Dr. Cal Lightman

Posted 26 May 2014 - 06:23 PM

this is like this forum topic:

http://www.unexplain...opic=266178&hl=

Science and Theology: Incompatible?

Can there be a reasonable synthesis of faith and reason?


i could be wrong, and dont be afraid to tell me so.

Posted Image


#3    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 10,346 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 26 May 2014 - 06:25 PM

Two books, one is called the Bible the other is What Evolution is, Science Masters series. They do not compliment each other.

You will not see this:

Posted Image

Next to this:

Posted Image

Edited by freetoroam, 26 May 2014 - 06:40 PM.


#4    White Unicorn

White Unicorn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:27 PM

View PostOrphalesion, on 26 May 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Hey-o

I usually don't subscribe to forums, yet I feel that I don't really have anybody in RL anymore I can talk this over with rationally as most of my friends either fall into the 'Religion Only" camp, the "Science Only" camp or the "That's boring man, let's play LOL!" camp. And if the internet can offer me access to a larger, maybe more diverse community, why not use that, right?

Basically I'm effing sick of this whole either or mentality when it comes to Science (particularly evolution and archaeology) and Religion, why does there have to be an either or? I grew up with both. I accepted that there is a God who created us just as easily as I accepted that, millions of years ago, dinosaurs roamed the Earth or that the Universe was billions of years old. Later I came up with a lot of, childlike theories to reconcile one with the other, one was that the Garden of Eden took place after the comet that killed the dinosaurs or after/during the Ice Age.
I always loved learning about faith and about many types of science (not a big fan of Math, Chemistry and Physics though) and find that they fulfil different needs for me,

Yet now I keep hearing "You can't be Christian unless you believe 100% in the Bible" or "You accept science and then take religion serious" etc.etc.etc.

Why not? That's like saying "You can't eat Vegetables and Meat, you have to choose for the rest of your life!" Why should I be forced to close myself to one source of thought to appreciate the other?
The funny thing is, this "either or" mentality appears to be a fairly recent trend, maybe a hundred years or so. Science and Religion used to love each other: Monks studied and copied ancient texts on maths and medicine, Popes acted as patrons for struggling scientists and there were even Christian Darwin societies.

And according to this article:

http://biologos.org/...ponse-to-darwin

all that "Young Earth" babble is more a pouting response to Darwinist Theories than any form of universely accepted doctrine.

I probably don't have to point out how unscientific Mr. Dawkin's rethoric is and that continuisly insulting everybody who disagrees with you is not a good way to make people take you seriously or consider your point of view. I'd even go as far as to theorize that Richard Dawkins is paid to act that way by a secret cabal of Religious Leaders to undermine proper scientists. Just like I think that those children's books that show Adam and Eve prancing aabout with dinosaurs are written by militant Atheists trying to make any form of Faith seem laughable to the masses. Not really, I'm not very into conspiracies, but that's just how laughable these "extreme" opinions seem to me.

I just find it very, very difficutl to dismiss the possibility that the Old Testament is little more than the legends, laws and poetry of the ancient Hebrews and that the New Testament has been severely tempered with in the last 2000 years or so (there's evidence for this, why are there 4 accounts of the life of Jesus if each of them is 100% true God's word? And don't forget the Apocrypta) Lutherans denounce Catholics for believing in the infallibility of a man (the Pope) yet they promote and defend the infallibility of the dozens of men who the Bible? Man, even a translation mistake can change meaning (Thanks, King James!)

Likewise, I find idea of everything. all of existence, life the universe etc. etc. etc. just being a massive happenstance very difficult to believe as well. So what if we can calculate models and theories on how we THINK the universe works? Who says we can process all the information? We can’t even see Ultraviolet and Infrared (except for a very lucky minority who apparently CAN see Ultraviolet) who knows what we might not even be able to sense with machines? Us completely understanding the universe is (in my eyes) like amoebas trying to understand the body of the blue whale that just swallowed them. We are helplessly failing about in the dark, hoping to connect the pieces of a puzzle with 10 trillion pieces.

Sorry about the rant. That is just something I wanted to get off my chest for a long time. And don’t just eat meat or vegetables. The human body needs a balanced diet. Don’t just follow Science or Faith, the human mind needs varied stimuli.    
What do other people think?

Yes there is a middle ground and it is called TRUTH.

Be a sceptic with an open mind, always even question your own discoveries because a truth may really contain more then one answer.  If you answer a question with a question this is truth because you are not jumping to a wrong conclusion and saying this is the only answer. Some conclusions can be proved to one but it is not the whole truth.

Both religion and science get caught up in their own dogmas and theories and fill in the many blanks that they can't comprehend with their own misperceptions leading them further away from the truth.  Truth seekers who have tried to show the blending of philosophy, religion and science and that they all contain certain truths have usually been killed by society throughout history. So the general society remains blind and stick to what is convenient for them.  




#5    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:47 PM

View PostWhite Unicorn, on 26 May 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Both religion and science get caught up in their own dogmas and theories and fill in the many blanks that they can't comprehend with their own misperceptions leading them further away from the truth.

While science has its fair share of dogma, it is progressive and forward thinking. Religion doesn't deal with theories. I run a mile from anyone who claims to know anything about "the truth", especially those that write it in capitals.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 26 May 2014 - 09:47 PM.

Science isn’t about truth and falsity, it’s about reducing uncertainty ~ Brian Nosek

#6    apron

apron

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I am Joseph.

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:54 PM

Science and Religion. There is no complement in each other ? No !  
   Recently in Argentina archeologists found 300 million (carbon dated) years dinosar fossil. These archaeological finding is not opposing with any Bible verses. Because Bible is not a History book.
   Jesus said " There is no ' LO HERE AND LO THERE ', the kingdom of god is WITHIN YOU. " Adam was/is there /here. The garden of Eden was/ is there/here in time/eternity. Just choose like Jesus did to hold on eternitky. It's better for you and me to wear fig leaves or coatskin bikini/apron than unconsciously or consciously be naked.
  In all ages - iceage , bronze age, iron age - men in all continents wore loincloth. In Africa and Asia still  many people wear these covering.


I am Joseph; doth my father yet live ?

#7    apron

apron

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I am Joseph.

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:56 PM

In Bible story Elijah and John Baptist wore this bikini. St. Paul had this apron/ handkerchief. And serves as Amulet/symbol of medicine. Even ,the hem of Jesus's robe , the woman who touched it, may be apron, loin cloth. And Isaiah said " righteousness shall be the GIRDLE of his <jesus's> loins, and faithfulness the GIRDLE of his reins." Isa. 11:5

I am Joseph; doth my father yet live ?

#8    White Unicorn

White Unicorn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:49 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 26 May 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:



While science has its fair share of dogma, it is progressive and forward thinking. Religion doesn't deal with theories. I run a mile from anyone who claims to know anything about "the truth", especially those that write it in capitals.

I agree with you about the scientific method and it can be used to study some religious phenomenon and beliefs. That would make me a heretic in most religions. I believe in truth not blind faith. Truth brings understanding that can reconcile everything even how the misconceptions happen, whether it is within theories of science or religious beliefs. Truth exists whether or not anyone sees and understands it. Truth is the goal not the method by which one discovers it.  




#9    Orphalesion

Orphalesion

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2014
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:51 PM

I'm glad about the diversity of responses.

@willowdreams: Thank's I'll check that thread out!

@ freetoroam: Well I  already said I do not take the Old Testament literally. I have my theories regarding Eden, Adam and Eve. What if it is a metaphor for humans evolving sapience? The Tree of knowledge of good and evil (Sapience) the Fruit (the ovum) the snake curled around the branch (the DNA helix) From that moment on our ancestors were cast out of the "Paradise" of lviing in the now and gained awareness of time and death. The problem is I think that people take metaphors literally. I have a few quite controversial theories about the Old Testament.

@ White Unicorn: thanks, that sounds very inspiring. Glad that some people see the possibility.

@ Emma_Acid: Well see, I think Religion SHOULD deal only with theories and always keep an open mind about things. After all, we are only humans, how can humans hope to ever fully understand the divine? Even Jesus was a mortal man with his mind clouded by the world he lived in.

@apron: exactly the bible is not a history book and so it and evolution/archeology do not contradict each other. And yes I agree with you as far as climate permits people should dress like that. I'm quite fond of Ancient Greek fashion. Chitons for everyone :clap:  !!!

Edited by Orphalesion, 26 May 2014 - 10:54 PM.


#10    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 10,346 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 26 May 2014 - 11:03 PM

View Postapron, on 26 May 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:


  In all ages - iceage , bronze age, iron age - men in all continents wore loincloth. In Africa and Asia still  many people wear these covering.
Where do you get this from? Man dressed in accordance to the climate. You do not see Inuits wearing loinclothes. During the ice age man would have covered himself in animal furs, he would not have survived the cold in a loincloth.


#11    Orphalesion

Orphalesion

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2014
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 11:53 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 26 May 2014 - 11:03 PM, said:

Where do you get this from? Man dressed in accordance to the climate. You do not see Inuits wearing loinclothes. During the ice age man would have covered himself in animal furs, he would not have survived the cold in a loincloth.

Well apparently that cadaver from the Ice Age they found in the Alps did wear a loincloth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi

He did wear other things (a cloak a coat, leggins and shoes) over/with it, but he did wear a loincloth. It's likely that he stripped down considerably in summer (after all, the Ice Age wasn't frozen tundra all year round) like some Native American tribes did.

Edited by Orphalesion, 27 May 2014 - 12:02 AM.


#12    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 5,507 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 27 May 2014 - 01:15 AM

Welcome to Um, Orphalesion! There are and have been many scientists who believe in some religion, and their religious beliefs haven't seemed to discourage their search for scientific truths. However, when religious beliefs influence objective, empirical observation, this is no longer science.

I haven't seen any evidence of this happening in the rigorous scientific community, only in the religious community: religious dogma portrayed as scientific evidence for that dogma. Therefore in my opinion it would be wise to keep science and religion absolutely separate.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#13    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 10,346 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 27 May 2014 - 01:21 AM

View PostOrphalesion, on 26 May 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

Well apparently that cadaver from the Ice Age they found in the Alps did wear a loincloth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi

He did wear other things (a cloak a coat, leggins and shoes) over/with it, but he did wear a loincloth. It's likely that he stripped down considerably in summer (after all, the Ice Age wasn't frozen tundra all year round) like some Native American tribes did.
Wearing clothes over one is more like it, I would be surprised if under the clothes he was wearing Calvin Klein in those days.

Edited by freetoroam, 27 May 2014 - 01:21 AM.


#14    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 27 May 2014 - 02:41 AM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 27 May 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

Welcome to Um, Orphalesion! There are and have been many scientists who believe in some religion, and their religious beliefs haven't seemed to discourage their search for scientific truths.

Starting with Robert Grosseteste the Bishop of Lincoln, who invented the scientific method. This combination of science and religion continues today with people like Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, Fr. George Coyne, former head of the Vatican observatory (there's a good Youtube discussion with him and Richard Dawkins), and Ken Miller, the devout Catholic biologist who destroyed the Intelligent Design argument in the Dover District School trial. There are many more examples. What you are describing are the Fundamentalist, literalist Christian views.


#15    JJ50

JJ50

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Joined:25 Apr 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 May 2014 - 08:01 AM

I think science is where it is at, although it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there was an intelligent designer. However I don't think it was the Biblical version of the deity.

“The wise recognise their failings and laugh at their idiosyncrasies” RJG






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users