Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Orphalesion

Religion AND Science: Middlegound possible?

25 posts in this topic

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

this is like this forum topic:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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:

qYCLh.jpg

Next to this:

adam-eve5.jpg

Edited by freetoroam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

), and
, 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.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Starmountainkid: I see what you mean, yet... sometimes there are scientists (not all of them, but some) who are so full of themselves and so convinced of their own superiority that they causally and callously reject any other theories. Like I had a university professor who would start his first lecture in a semester with "You are free to believe in a God, but I will think of you as stupid for doing so." And would continue to jab at religion throughout his lectures, is that not, in a way, a very anti-religious dogma and somewhat narrow minded? After all, where is his proof that there is no God? And what does it hurt him if others believe?

@ redhren: See that's waht I mean: Religion and Science often go together, for a truly devout person Science should be a tool to understand God's creation better, not an enemy to fight.

@ JJ 50: I agree with you that the Bible is probably not the absolute truth. Good that you keep an open mind. I salute you, kind madam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be a fool to dismiss the possibility of a deity of some kind, even though I think the deities worshiped by humans don't exist.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"had a university professor who would start his first lecture in a semester with "You are free to believe in a God, but I will think of you as stupid for doing so." And would continue to jab at religion throughout his lectures, is that not, in a way, a very anti-religious dogma and somewhat narrow minded?"

Yup, this happens every fall throughout North America and Europe. Some call it Cultural Marxism, also known as political correctness. It didn't used to be this way. This theist-baiting in the classroom took hold in the 1960's and now it's just an accepted norm in academia.

This is a 90 minute documentary on this ideology that is promoted on colleges. You can just watch the first two minutes to get the gist of it.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by redhen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wacthed the first 15 minutes. Uhm...no. That seems to have very little to do with the topic at hand. The movie appears to be concerned with racial issues. And that professor was the only one at my uni who was like that and he was infamous among students and his own collegues for his staunch stand the topic of Religion vs. Science. Insulting people has nothing to do with political correctness and it was not just Christians he dismissed, but any sort of Religion or Belief. I respected him in some ways, because he DID know a lot about his field.

I remember university very much as a market place of ideas where I would never have to be afraid to speak what I had in min and I was more often rewarded for doing so rather than rebutted or silenced. I don't think I was ever silenced. Then again I can't talk about American Universtities, maybe it is very different over there.

Professors are just people too, with their own quirks, part of it is that a student has to learn to work with all sorts of people, some more reasonable, some less.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental problem is not between science and God. The problem is between science and religion only. :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Starmountainkid: I see what you mean, yet... sometimes there are scientists (not all of them, but some) who are so full of themselves and so convinced of their own superiority that they causally and callously reject any other theories.

Its pretty obvious from this sentence that you don't understand science, nor the scientific method.

Like I had a university professor who would start his first lecture in a semester with "You are free to believe in a God, but I will think of you as stupid for doing so." And would continue to jab at religion throughout his lectures, is that not, in a way, a very anti-religious dogma and somewhat narrow minded?

Possible, but this has nothing to do with science.

After all, where is his proof that there is no God? And what does it hurt him if others believe?

You can't prove a negative. And do you really want me to list here and start listing off the reasons why living your life according to spurious faith and not evidence-based reason is bad for the individual, society and civilisation??

I agree with you that the Bible is probably not the absolute truth.

No "probably" about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Its pretty obvious from this sentence that you don't understand science, nor the scientific method.

Arrogance is arrogance, no matter if it comes from (former) Pope Benedict XVI or Richard Dawkins. I understand that every article and thesis/statement a scientist makes/publishes has to be severely researched, cross-referenced and peer-reviewed in order to be taken seriously and that any ungrounded, unverified wack-job idea has a snowballs chance in hell of making it to publication. I just think that tomorrow (or in 20 years or in an hour) we could discover something that totally proves a lot of what we "know" wrong. The professor I took as example once told me (for we had a rather positive work relationship, mainly because I thought a laboratory or lecture theater weren't the right place to push my private opinions) that when he was young, his geography professor refused to even consider the idea of continental draft and instead preferred the outdated idea of animals travelling via (now sunken) land bridges. That is the sort of arrogance I am against, not if someone is confident in their theories because they are well researched and acknowledged by the scientific community. I really just meant the few black sheep among the scientists, and I fully admit that there are plenty, plenty of that type of person in religion and I take just as much offense to it whenever they try to push it on me.

Possible, but this has nothing to do with science.

Ah I think I see what you mean here, it has nothing to do with Science as an abstract concept. But it was to do with the people who make up the scientific community. I don't believe that there is a plot among the scientific community to root out all religion, just like I don't believe that there is a plot in most (reasonable) religious communities to root out science (that would be dumb and shortsighted and I would be the first to speak against it) Though yes there are more Religious leaders that spout stupid nonsense against scientific research that (fully acknowledged and acclaimed) scientists that "preach" against religion to the public

You can't prove a negative. And do you really want me to list here and start listing off the reasons why living your life according to spurious faith and not evidence-based reason is bad for the individual, society and civilisation??

No you can't. I admit that was a rather dump statement of mine. But he should not call people stupid for having a personal philosophy, as long as they don't hurt anybody and don't interfere with his life/work.

I know that there are plenty of dangers in organized religion. Let's start: The various wars and genocides that people justified by using Religion or religious rhetoric and those that (as far as I know) were caused by religion alone, if there really were any (The witch burnings are all I can think of, even the Crusades had a variety of reasons, beyond religion), the mistreatment/suppression of women ingrained in many (if not all) mayor religions (I don't know enough about Hinduism to be sure about it) and the misogynistic behavior this can cause, persecution of homosexuals and the possibility for religion-induced self-hate of religious homosexuals, the danger of indoctrination from a very young age, suppression of new knowledge or discoveries because some person thinks they are contradicting their believes, instead of adapting their believes to the new knowledge. The general idea many/most/all religions have that there is one, and only one, right way to speak/think/act and to generally live your life no matter if you wan to/can follow that path. The danger that most religious texts are extremely old have been over the course of time been cut, expanded (the tacked-on moral ending to Ecclesiastes), edited and translated for all sorts of reasons and with various amounts of skill, and can now be interpreted to pretty much further any agenda you want to push. The high amount of peer pressure and mob mentality (you can say) that prevails among many religious groups (like for instance my Bible group turning on me for suggesting an alternative interpretation of Genesis) The danger of accepting what amounts to guesses and (unproven) theory as facts and law. Some people eschewing modern medicine because of some interpretation of something that someone wrote a thousand years ago for possibly entirely different reasons.Pretty much any time religion and politics met.

And I have barely scratched the surface.

Just this month Tony Abbot is wasting 245 MILLION AusD to send preachers into schools to warn against the dangers of homosexuality. That's ******* stupid and can lead to a number of short and long term problems (increased homophobia and hate of LGBT people up to and including a danger that there will be more hate crimes and long term depression, self-hate and suicides among LGBT teens)

However, Eugenics has and still leads to all sorts of discrimination as well. And is the theory (Don't know how recent that is anymore, haven't read anything on the subject in a while) that as a homosexual you are a genetic reject, a mistake caused by an unfeeling system in a indifferent universe, any better?

Personally I believe that Faith and Science are both good things that can help society and individuals, but can lead to pretty bad stuff if misused. (Eugenics is highly criticized among the general scientific community, Leviticus is a primitive and outdated Juristic text of the ancient Hebrew people, not a religious book) Unfortunately everything can be perverted and misused. Blind followers deserve their own fate and while certain passages in the Bible seem like they promote unquestioning fate (Matthew 18:3, which can be interpreted in plenty of ways) a lot of other places warn against unquestioning faith in the books and words of prophets (The Apostle Stories, Peter's and Paul's letters, Revelations).

Faith and Science both seek truth, science has the better tools, but both should never stop doubting and reevaluating themselves.

No "probably" about it.

Agreed, I only wrote "probably" because I try to avoid definitive statements whenever I can. One can say with a good amount of confidence that there is more than enough evidence against it being 100% true and were little empirical evidence to give any credibility to the Old Testament. What some modern churches forget is that there is a difference between "(possibly) divinely inspired, written down (and messed around with) by fallible people " and "absolute truth dictated by God and never trifled with". And that's were the false dichotomy between faith and scientific facts arises.

Edited by Orphalesion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Religion in actuality is the catch and the trick !

The more ancient one goes into the spirituality of the world, spiritual systems becomes much more complex and most of all~ scientific. I did a thread last year or so on the identity of God and how ancient people ranging from the Ancient Africans to the Ancient Hindus to the Native Americans. All of these people viewed God in the same aspect, which was the balancing factor of NATURE, rather than an anthropomorphic entity. Spiritualiy deals with seen and unseen energy which makes up the four major energies that makes up LIFE~ Gravity/Electromagnetism/Strong Force/Weak Force.

Edited by Spore
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So..... Buddhism and science have no quarrel. Why does everyone always discount eastern religion and philosophy in their p***ing contests? Is it the whole "crazy" reincarnation part?

Edited by Mojohand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In revelation 11:8 sodom and Egypt been called the place ' where jesus crucified '. Our lord Jesus Christ crucified not in Jerusalem , egypt and sodom literaly.

Bible is a book for soul and heart. Jesus is not alive, risen christ for 'modern' day christianity. 99% of modern day christians ' rejoice over him (dead body of jesus )and make merry, sending gifts one to another; because jesus tormented them'/paraphrased from Revelation 11:10

But 1% christians 'mourning for him, as one mourn for his only son, and in bitterness for him , as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.' Zechariah 12:10

From these one out of hundred sheep,to some of them -who wait for risen christ - Jesus will show himself as he (did ) for Mary Magdelene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.