Are Religion and Science Mutually Exclusive?

[The Californian]

Okay, I know how heated these debates can get but I'm hoping we can keep this one cordial.

Do you believe that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive? Why or why not?

Thank you.

[thegoldenmackid]

If you believe the Bible (or any other religious text) to be a literal interpretation of history, yes. Quite frankly, if you believe any religious tradition to be literal, then you are in trouble.

Churches even acknowledge that the bible is not a history text, rather a spiritual text inspired by God.

[Chundles]

Science proves that much of what religious people believe is false but it's not like believing that stuff is harmful, it only gets harmful if you try and enforce those beliefs.

[The Californian]

If you believe the Bible (or any other religious text) to be a literal interpretation of history, yes. Quite frankly, if you believe any religious tradition to be literal, then you are in trouble.

Churches even acknowledge that the bible is not a history text, rather a spiritual text inspired by God.

So from what I get you're saying they aren't mutually exclusive unless you believe in religious texts literally.

[The Californian]

Science proves that much of what religious people believe is false but it's not like believing that stuff is harmful, it only gets harmful if you try and enforce those beliefs.

What exactly does science prove false about religious peoples beliefs?

[Zombie Acorn]

For me it is, I don't know why we even need/have religion to start with. Even when i did believe in God (taught by my parents) it was more of a santa clause effect than anything else, when I got older (4-5 yo) it didn't fit so I discarded (and made grade school church classes a living hell for my teachers).

[Chundles]

What exactly does science prove false about religious peoples beliefs?

Erm, most of it, genesis, evolution of the species' etc. We've shown that the Earth wasn't willed into existence by a deity but rather is the result of billions of years of accretion around our sun. Also that the animals of the planet weren't created out of dust but are the result of billions of years of adaption and development in response to changing environmental conditions.

[The Californian]

Erm, most of it, genesis, evolution of the species' etc. We've shown that the Earth wasn't willed into existence by a deity but rather is the result of billions of years of accretion around our sun. Also that the animals of the planet weren't created out of dust but are the result of billions of years of adaption and development in response to changing environmental conditions.

I won't claim to be an expert of the Bible by any means, but I've read it and I don't see anything that eliminates the possibility of evolution. What if a deity is the what, and evolution is the how?

[skunk]

What if a deity is the what, and evolution is the how?Any deity, or did you have a specific one in mind?

[The Californian]

Any deity, or did you have a specific one in mind?

Of course I have one in mind, but of course it is only an opinion and that ultimately counts for nothing.

[Xapphire13]

What exactly does science prove false about religious peoples beliefs?

How does the bible account for matter, particles, nucleons, quarks, energy-mass relationship etc... after all, that is what science has proved we are

[The Californian]

How does the bible account for matter, particles, nucleons, quarks, energy-mass relationship etc... after all, that is what science has proved we are

I believe that's a common misconception about the Bible, that it is supposed to contain all of the answers to all of the mysteries of the cosmos. In reality it is a story of redemption and how that redemption happened from beginning to end. In brief, that is the plot of the Bible, and that is what it focuses on, it does not concern itself with explaining other things because that is not it's purpose.

[Xapphire13]

I believe that's a common misconception about the Bible, that it is supposed to contain all of the answers to all of the mysteries of the cosmos. In reality it is a story of redemption and how that redemption happened from beginning to end. In brief, that is the plot of the Bible, and that is what it focuses on, it does not concern itself with explaining other things because that is not it's purpose.

So it's just a story book?

[.Andy]

It entirely depends on one's chosen god or gods, combined with an individual's understanding of science, in the context to their ability to compartmentalise their thinking and capacity for cognitive dissonance. And if you can understand that sentence there is a good chance you are the messiah.

[aswitcher]

Anyone who is serious about looking at Religion and Science for themselves, and how what the known facts, scientific theories (Hawkings etc) and the Bible meet or conflict, I recommend Hugh ROSS.

THE Creator AND THE Cosmos. HOW THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES OF THE CENTURY REVEAL GOD
HUGH ROSS, Ph.D.

CREATION as SCIENCE, A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars
HUGH ROSS

[The Californian]

So it's just a story book?

I would consider it more of a history book, but that's just what I believe.

[edesignuk]

Do we need one of these a week? :rolleyes:

[.Andy]

Anyone who is serious about looking at Religion and Science for themselves, and how what the known facts, scientific theories (Hawkings etc) and the Bible meet or conflict, I recommend Hugh ROSS.
Odd that you'd choose to link two books by a creationist that rejects evolution and runs his own ministry as a source of impartial evidence that not only are science and god not in conflict, but in fact science proves god*.

*christian god only.

Do we need one of these a week? :rolleyes:
If you clicked on this thread you're morally obliged to tithe.

[arkitect]

I won't claim to be an expert of the Bible by any means, but I've read it and…

*cough* I am still waiting for you to reference exactly where the bible states that the planets and earth orbit the sun…
;)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8570886&postcount=21
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8570902&postcount=23

Do we need one of these a week? :rolleyes:

Especially since this one (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=795460) is still running.

[iBlue]

Probably. It seems that science debunks a lot of what religion holds stubbornly dear. It's too big of a stretch - trying to fit what the bible tells us with what scientific studies show us. One is centered around faith, the other is centered around observational research and evidence. Like it or not, they're fundamentally different.

[The Californian]

Do we need one of these a week? :rolleyes:

I would just love to get some honesty opinions on this. I believe that people believe the science proves religions wrong. I have spent a great deal of time studying as many world religions as I can, and at the same time I am a biology major and have spent a great amount of time studying not only the development of humans, but the history of our world. The more I study the human being, and the theories of evolution therein the more I find myself studying the Bible and seeing that there is nothing to contradict what I am learning in my studies.

I truly believe that science and religion are not only NOT mutually exclusive, but that they are quite cohesive.

I'm simply trying to see what others opinions are, because I'm a firm believer that believing you are correct and listening to no one else's opinion is simply ignorance.

Sorry if it bothers you e.

[edesignuk]

Sorry if it bothers you e.It doesn't bother me, I don't have to take part, I'm free to ignore it.

I just don't know what you expect to learn here, you know how this goes, round and round in circles.

[The Californian]

*cough* I am still waiting for you to reference exactly where the bible states that the planets and earth orbit the sun…
;)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8570886&postcount=21
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8570902&postcount=23


I replied almost a week ago.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8579196#post8579196

[The Californian]

It doesn't bother me, I don't have to take part, I'm free to ignore it.

I just don't know what you expect to learn here, you know how this goes, round and round in circles.

I can easily filter the responses. There are a few people on here who's opinions I truly respect on here and I believe that open conversations like this are always good.

[arkitect]

I replied almost a week ago.

Thanks for replying… I missed that since it wasn't a direct reply (link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8570902&postcount=23)).
But glad to see you own up to being wrong…

:)

[The Californian]

Thanks for replying… I missed that since it wasn't a direct reply (link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8570902&postcount=23)).
But glad to see you own up to being wrong…

:)

Sorry, I should have placed your name in the reply as to make it easier for you to see. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, I find being honest and admitting fault quickly two of the best ways to make my life easier.

[blackfox]

Perhaps they are, but they shouldn't necessarily be.

After all, humanity has always been looking for answers - at the time the Bible (or any of the great religious texts) were pretty progressive. Science has progressed over the years (especially in the last 200), while religious texts have remained static.

As humanity's inquiry has become more sophisticated, science has become more relevant and relateable as religion has remained unchanged. It is only natural that the more sophisticated would gain the upper hand. The only trump card religion holds is one of philosophy - which science has no part of.

Much has been noted over the years of great scientists being very spiritual-not necessarily denominationally religious- as a result of their scientific inquiry. The great books of religion touch upon some major truths, which are or should not be diminished by subsequent narrow interpretations or divisive tactics. After all, both Religion and Science are the fallible attempts of humanity to understand their existence and purpose in the universe, given the knowledge and wisdom they have/had at their disposal.

[AP_piano295]

A big part of many religion is explaining away the things that people do not know or understand.

A big part of science is finding the real answers and explinations to the things we dont understand.

These two elements cannot coexist one encourages ignorance based on our fear of the unknown. While the other side seeks understanding (a prusuit historically prosecuted by the religious).

The other side of religion might be called spritualism/philosophy elements that are particularly prevelent in East Asian "religions" like Budism or Taoism. Science has really nothing to do with this side of religion and so here they can coexist.

[Rt&Dzine]

I don't think religion and science are necessarily mutually exclusive. I DO think Fundamental Christianity and science are mutually exclusive.

[Dagless]

None of the hardcore Catholic folk I know (even the ones who attend Midnight Mass) don't think of the bible as a source of history. Nor do they believe God made the world in 6 days, is just a few thousand years old and all that hoohaw. One can always have a religion and not let their beliefs get in the way of rock solid science.

[arkitect]

None of the hardcore Catholic folk I know (even the ones who attend Midnight Mass) don't think of the bible as a source of history.

Although the bible might actually have more to do with history than science… ;)

[rotlex]

None of the hardcore Catholic folk I know (even the ones who attend Midnight Mass) don't think of the bible as a source of history. Nor do they believe God made the world in 6 days, is just a few thousand years old and all that hoohaw. One can always have a religion and not let their beliefs get in the way of rock solid science.

The Catholic Church itself does not hold anyone to a literal interpretation of scripture. In many cases, Catholics, myself included, are looked at as taking the Bible literally, word for word, when in fact, that is very far from the truth.

Don't have links handy, but even a quick Google regarding the Vaticans stance on these issues and questions can yield some surprising results. :)

[Rodimus Prime]

I do not feel they are Mutually Exclusive. If some one truly believes they are no matter which side they are on I considered them closed minded and not worth my time debating on any of the matters.

I think to many people believe you can not be both.
You have the ones who are on the science side who believe that they are and when ask to prove God does not existed it is discovered that they cann't. On the religion side well those people reject science which is wrong.

The 7 days in gen I go with that is 7 days in Gods time which is not 7 days of our time.
Other point is who is to say that the world was not made at the poitn were humans are walking and created very quickly from scratch.
Think of it like a Video game. Talk world of war craft. It has a huge back story yet most of that happened very quickly in our time because we programed it. We programed in the back story. We programed in the physics.

Who says that God is not a computer programmer who just programmed in the back story and all out science.


Now that being said I do not believe that it is that way. Just had to give some food for though. I go with the though that God just had a hand in guiding how we evolved. He made the odds fall in the favor of humans taking form. You can make a coin land a 100 times on heads if you set it down with heads up.

[AP_piano295]

I do not feel they are Mutually Exclusive. If some one truly believes they are no matter which side they are on I considered them closed minded and not worth my time debating on any of the matters.

I think to many people believe you can not be both.
You have the ones who are on the science side who believe that they are and when ask to prove God does not existed it is discovered that they cann't. On the religion side well those people reject science which is wrong.

The 7 days in gen I go with that is 7 days in Gods time which is not 7 days of our time.
Other point is who is to say that the world was not made at the poitn were humans are walking and created very quickly from scratch.
Think of it like a Video game. Talk world of war craft. It has a huge back story yet most of that happened very quickly in our time because we programed it. We programed in the back story. We programed in the physics.

Who says that God is not a computer programmer who just programmed in the back story and all out science.


Now that being said I do not believe that it is that way. Just had to give some food for though. I go with the though that God just had a hand in guiding how we evolved. He made the odds fall in the favor of humans taking form. You can make a coin land a 100 times on heads if you set it down with heads up.

But you have absolutely zero evidence for your beliefs. If thats' what you want to believe then thats fine but that isnt science and religion coexisting. Rather that is simply denying science.

Also if that is your personal belief ok but the moment you try to force your unsubstantiated beliefs on others (ie* teaching creationism in school) then that is not ok.

[iPhone 62S]

Okay, I know how heated these debates can get but I'm hoping we can keep this one cordial.

Do you believe that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive? Why or why not?

Thank you.

No, they aren't. For example, someone could believe in evolution, but also believe that God started it all off. I don't see why they have to be separate at all.

[Rodimus Prime]

But you have absolutely zero evidence for your beliefs. If thats' what you want to believe then thats fine but that isnt science and religion coexisting. Rather that is simply denying science.

Also if that is your personal belief ok but the moment you try to force your unsubstantiated beliefs on others (ie* teaching creationism in school) then that is not ok.

and yet you can not disprove you. That is my point I made. I provided different cases that allow for most of the theories out there to work as one (creationism works under the computer programing example) but as I said I subscrib to another.

This thread is about them being mutually exclusive or not. Not about the other debate.

On top of that you started putting words in mouth. No where did I bring in school. I provided cases where they work falls in the bounds of science. I never said creationism should be taught in school but at the same time you can not stated Evolution is a fact either. It must be taught as a theory. Theory is bases guess based on evidence in hand but still a best guess that must be allowed to change as over evidence comes into play. But this is another argument.

I stand by what I said if some one is closed minded to believe they are mutually exculisve there is no point to debate with them because they are as guilty at being closed minded as the side that does not believe in science.

[Zombie Acorn]

and yet you can not disprove you. That is my point I made. I provided different cases that allow for most of the theories out there to work as one (creationism works under the computer programing example) but as I said I subscrib to another.

This thread is about them being mutually exclusive or not. Not about the other debate.

On top of that you started putting words in mouth. No where did I bring in school. I provided cases where they work falls in the bounds of science. I never said creationism should be taught in school but at the same time you can not stated Evolution is a fact either. It must be taught as a theory. Theory is bases guess based on evidence in hand but still a best guess that must be allowed to change as over evidence comes into play. But this is another argument.

I stand by what I said if some one is closed minded to believe they are mutually exculisve there is no point to debate with them because they are as guilty at being closed minded as the side that does not believe in science.

80th time on this board its been announced: Evolution is both fact and theory. We can easily observe evolution, we don't know the full mechanics, much like gravity.

Religion and science co-existing usually involves some leap in logic to attribute the science to religion. Its like believing my car starts every day due to god even though I know how an engine works.

[Don't panic]

it depends.

in general, you can clearly devise belief systems that are not in contrast with scientific evidence, and if the system is flexible, you can modify it to accomodate new findings (and you can always create a new belief system).

if we are talking only about the christian (or muslim or jewish) perspective, than it is obvious that any literal interpretation of the bible is quite obviously wrong and noone of average intellect and education should have any qualms about it.
if you accept that at least some part are non-literal, than it all depends on how much you push it.
the problem with this, is that the amount of 'pushing' needed to accomodate the religious text with reality has steadily increased as our scientific knowledge expands.

eventually you'd be probably left with the idea that god 'created' the universe with it's physics and then pretty much let it go.

this could well be, but it is also makes god an unnecessity: in other words, science might not formally exclude the existance of some supernatural being, but makes it redundant and therefore practically insignificant.

[leekohler]

Of course they aren't mutually exclusive. However, religion has made claims refuted by science. That threatens organized religion's authority.

[.Andy]

The only trump card religion holds is one of philosophy - which science has no part of.
Why does science have no part of philosophy? What does religion bring to philosophy?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Also if that is your personal belief ok but the moment you try to force your unsubstantiated beliefs on others (ie* teaching creationism in school) then that is not ok.

I see what you're saying here AP, but answer this for me (and in doing it know that I have no real dog in the fight, merely want to play devils advocate for a moment).

At what point does teaching creationism constitute "forcing ones beliefs on others"? Last time I checked, they didn't hold a gun to anybody's head at school until they were certain that everything that was being taught was accepted as truth. They merely speak about it, ask students at a later time what they remember that was spoken about and that's really about it. It's up to the student whether or not they actually believe what's been taught. I've had tons of classes taught by absolute morons, their lectures contradict every other piece of information I could aquire from textbooks and published research. I in no way believe much of what they taught, but I remembered it well enough to get my A and then forgot it next semester. It's pretty easy to do.

No, I think the idea people have about mentioning creationism in school has more to do with trying to shield their children (and other people's children as a direct result) from a belief that they have a personal disagreeance with. Nothing more. It's quite ironic because these same people are the ones screaming loudest that religious people try and prevent the pursuit of knowlege and try to sensor the free exchange of information, yet there they are doing it themselves. Pot meet Kettle so to speak eh?

And if you do in fact subscribe to the idea that the teaching of a particular topic in school constitutes "forcing a belief" then why is anything allowed to be taught at all? We don't want to go forcing other people's beliefs on kids do we? Why should science or grammar be any different? Shouldn't we require scientists to take time from their lives to spread their ideas in much the same way as religious missionaries if they want to "indoctrinate people" with their theories? Then people could make an informed decision about what they will and will not believe.


SLC

[Don't panic]

I see what you're saying here AP, but answer this for me (and in doing it know that I have no real dog in the fight, merely want to play devils advocate for a moment).

At what point does teaching creationism constitute "forcing ones beliefs on others"? Last time I checked, they didn't hold a gun to anybody's head at school until they were certain that everything that was being taught was accepted as truth. They merely speak about it, ask students at a later time what they remember that was spoken about and that's really about it. It's up to the student whether or not they actually believe what's been taught. I've had tons of classes taught by absolute morons, their lectures contradict every other piece of information I could aquire from textbooks and published research. I in no way believe much of what they taught, but I remembered it well enough to get my A and then forgot it next semester. It's pretty easy to do.

No, I think the idea people have about mentioning creationism in school has more to do with trying to shield their children (and other people's children as a direct result) from a belief that they have a personal disagreeance with. Nothing more. It's quite ironic because these same people are the ones screaming loudest that religious people try and prevent the pursuit of knowlege and try to sensor the free exchange of information, yet there they are doing it themselves. Pot meet Kettle so to speak eh?

And if you do in fact subscribe to the idea that the teaching of a particular topic in school constitutes "forcing a belief" then why is anything allowed to be taught at all? We don't want to go forcing other people's beliefs on kids do we? Why should science or grammar be any different? Shouldn't we require scientists to take time from their lives to spread their ideas in much the same way as religious missionaries if they want to "indoctrinate people" with their theories? Then people could make an informed decision about what they will and will not believe.


SLC

the problem here that you are comparing teaching of proven falsehood purely based on someone unsubstantiated beliefs to teaching what is the our current standard of knowledge, supported by proven facts.
you can play god's advocate as much as you want, but the two thing are very different.

it's like teaching that 1+4=6 because you don't like number 5. will most kids figure it out eventually? yes, but was it unethical and a waste of everyone time and money? yes. Not to mention those unlucky ones who will grow up believing that indeed 1+4=6 and will push that we keep teaching it in schools.

[Zombie Acorn]

I see what you're saying here AP, but answer this for me (and in doing it know that I have no real dog in the fight, merely want to play devils advocate for a moment).

At what point does teaching creationism constitute "forcing ones beliefs on others"? Last time I checked, they didn't hold a gun to anybody's head at school until they were certain that everything that was being taught was accepted as truth. They merely speak about it, ask students at a later time what they remember that was spoken about and that's really about it. It's up to the student whether or not they actually believe what's been taught. I've had tons of classes taught by absolute morons, their lectures contradict every other piece of information I could aquire from textbooks and published research. I in no way believe much of what they taught, but I remembered it well enough to get my A and then forgot it next semester. It's pretty easy to do.

No, I think the idea people have about mentioning creationism in school has more to do with trying to shield their children (and other people's children as a direct result) from a belief that they have a personal disagreeance with. Nothing more. It's quite ironic because these same people are the ones screaming loudest that religious people try and prevent the pursuit of knowlege and try to sensor the free exchange of information, yet there they are doing it themselves. Pot meet Kettle so to speak eh?

And if you do in fact subscribe to the idea that the teaching of a particular topic in school constitutes "forcing a belief" then why is anything allowed to be taught at all? We don't want to go forcing other people's beliefs on kids do we? Why should science or grammar be any different? Shouldn't we require scientists to take time from their lives to spread their ideas in much the same way as religious missionaries if they want to "indoctrinate people" with their theories? Then people could make an informed decision about what they will and will not believe.


SLC

These are kids you are talking about, not college level students. They believe whatever you tell them most of the time (which is why churches indoctrinate young). Its like a belief in Santa Clause that no one stops when you are over a certain age.

If we are going to be teaching nonsense in school we might as well go the full way and start teaching every religions belief, go ahead and teach them where easter and christmas really came from.

[SLC Flyfishing]

the problem here that you are comparing teaching of proven falsehood purely based on someone unsubstantiated beliefs to teaching what is the our current standard of knowledge, supported by proven facts.
you can play god's advocate as much as you want, but the two thing are very different.

it's like teaching that 1+4=6 because you don't like number 5. will most kids figure it out eventually? yes, but was it unethical and a waste of everyone time and money? yes. Not to mention those unlucky ones who will grow up believing that indeed 1+4=6 and will push that we keep teaching it in schools.

When was religion definatively proven to be false? And when did religion hold up that 1+4=6?

As far as I knew religion presents one possibility about the origin of life and all that we know, while science presents another one. Even science cannot prove everything in an absolute sense.

And why is it to be seen as unethical and a waste of time to present two different viewpoints? When both are presented together, and people are allowed to become informed about both in a public setting it does no harm, unless you consider the broadening of ones understanding of the world and it's peoples belief systems to he harmful.

I see where you're trying to go with your addition analogy, but mathematics is one of those rare areas of absolute certainty in that it is more of a language than a science. We use mathematics almost like a language when describing the world around us. 1+4 could have easily summed to 6 if the original creators of the number system had wanted the symbol 6 to define the concept that we use the symbol 5 to represent. And because of this, equating the teaching of religious concepts to teaching faulty mathematics doesn't really work.

[SLC Flyfishing]

If we are going to be teaching nonsense in school we might as well go the full way and start teaching every religions belief, go ahead and teach them where easter and christmas really came from.

I agree with this 100% and is pretty much where I was hoping the dialogue would eventually go.

I wonder how much of today's problems (read the problem with islamic extremism) stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of what the other side's motivations might be.

I think mandatory religious education could be a great thing.

I get the feeling that most of your opposition to the teaching of religious principles in school stems from your fear that some people might just decide to adopt that belief system. Which you disagree with personally, and don't want the public to officially condone. Why do you care what other people decide to believe, and adhere to in their personal lives?

[Zombie Acorn]

I agree with this 100% and is pretty much where I was hoping the dialogue would eventually go.

I wonder how much of today's problems (read the problem with islamic extremism) stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of what the other side's motivations might be.

I think mandatory religious education could be a great thing.

I get the feeling that most of your opposition to the teaching of religious principles in school stems from your fear that some people might just decide to adopt that belief system. Which you disagree with personally, and don't want the public to officially condone. Why do you care what other people decide to believe, and adhere to in their personal lives?

I don't believe in teaching undeveloped minds falsities, if you want to do it on a college level thats all good and well. If I had kids I would be sending them to learn something in school, not be preached to about religions when they could be learning something important. The religions would obviously be covered well enough in history class to show the kids all the good they have done in the past.

Also I care what other people decide to believe because its intertwined in our law system.

[Tomorrow]

How does the bible account for matter, particles, nucleons, quarks, energy-mass relationship etc...

Does it have to?

Where is this single "Great Big Book Of Everything" that explains every single minute detail about the universe, leaving out absolutely nothing? I don't have a copy; where did you get yours?

A big part of many religion is explaining away the things that people do not know or understand.

A big part of science is finding the real answers and explinations to the things we dont understand.

These two elements cannot coexist one encourages ignorance based on our fear of the unknown. While the other side seeks understanding (a prusuit historically prosecuted by the religious).

IMO, your summary of religion as a means of explaining away things we don't understand is not quite accurate.

It's true enough that religion does at times attempt to explain things that we haven't yet figured out; but that isn't necessarily why people believe in the first place. I never decided to go to church for the purpose of understanding what makes gravity work. I think your generalization is just a bit off.

I also think that your assertion that religion "encourages ignorance based on our fear of the unknown" is way off. If anything, religion tries to dispel our fears of the unknown. I don't in any way feel like I've been encouraged to remain blind to anything or to otherwise espouse any type of ignorance in the name of religion; you're off the mark with that comment, I think.

The inquisition was hundreds of years ago; we don't live in those times anymore, and the church doesn't hold the political power it once did.

Religion and science co-existing usually involves some leap in logic to attribute the science to religion. Its like believing my car starts every day due to god even though I know how an engine works.

If you feel like religion asks you to make a leap to attribute science to religion then you aren't getting the point of religion. I've gone to church most of my life and never been told or pushed into rejecting anything scientific. Are your comments based on your personal experiences in church? I'm curious to know what was said.

And your analogy about your car's engine starting is a bad one. Of course we know how an engine works; nothing in any religious text I've ever read goes into such mundane trivialities.

For me and many others, religion isn't about nitpicking the details, it's about embracing the big picture. I know that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs and such, but then neither does the the Good Housekeeping Cookbook - that doesn't mean the recipes are invalid, though. :cool:

[Rt&Dzine]

For me and many others, religion isn't about nitpicking the details, it's about embracing the big picture. I know that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs and such, but then neither does the the Good Housekeeping Cookbook - that doesn't mean the recipes are invalid, though. :cool:

Why would a cookbook mention something that was extinct before man existed and has no connection to cooking whatsoever? Whereas the Bible contains 'history' about the earth and its inhabitants. Poor analogy. Don't get me wrong. I think that if a Christian embraces the Bible as stories to help them live their life it doesn't necessarily contradict science. But if a Christian takes the stories as literal truth, it contradicts science.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Also I care what other people decide to believe because its intertwined in our law system.

And you'll have made a huge amount of progress when you realize that religious people are the same in this regard. They are worried about our laws just as you are. The great thing about modern democracy is that we all get a chance to have our voice heard, to influence the laws we must abide by and live under. I wouldn't have it any other way, and I'd be sad to see religions go away, even the ones that contradict my own.

SLC

[Tomorrow]

Why would a cookbook mention something that was extinct before man existed and has no connection to cooking whatsoever? Whereas the Bible contains 'history' about the earth and its inhabitants. Poor analogy. Don't get me wrong. I think that if a Christian embraces the Bible as stories to help them live their life it doesn't necessarily contradict science. But if a Christian takes the stories as literal truth, it contradicts science.

Very many of us DON'T take it literally; read the rest of my post above. It's about the big picture and not the details.

My analogy with the cookbook has to do with relevance; whether or not dinosaurs existed has nothing to do with God's message for us. There's no reason for dinosaurs to be in the Bible, and their omission has no bearing on whether information in the Bible can be useful to a Christian.

[Zombie Acorn]

And you'll have made a huge amount of progress when you realize that religious people are the same in this regard. They are worried about our laws just as you are. The great thing about modern democracy is that we all get a chance to have our voice heard, to influence the laws we must abide by and live under. I wouldn't have it any other way, and I'd be sad to see religions go away, even the ones that contradict my own.

SLC

So if I make up a religion on the spot with all types of weird and draconian rules and it suddenly becomes the majority relgiion in the US you would be for intertwining it in our law system even if it meant the US would be worse off for it?

[Don't panic]

When was religion definatively proven to be false? And when did religion hold up that 1+4=6?

As far as I knew religion presents one possibility about the origin of life and all that we know, while science presents another one. Even science cannot prove everything in an absolute sense.

And why is it to be seen as unethical and a waste of time to present two different viewpoints? When both are presented together, and people are allowed to become informed about both in a public setting it does no harm, unless you consider the broadening of ones understanding of the world and it's peoples belief systems to he harmful.

I see where you're trying to go with your addition analogy, but mathematics is one of those rare areas of absolute certainty in that it is more of a language than a science. We use mathematics almost like a language when describing the world around us. 1+4 could have easily summed to 6 if the original creators of the number system had wanted the symbol 6 to define the concept that we use the symbol 5 to represent. And because of this, equating the teaching of religious concepts to teaching faulty mathematics doesn't really work.

I was replying to your post about creationism, so I am not talking about religion in general. Just creationism.

No matter how many times you try to suggest that evolution and creationism are two equivalent points of view, they are not.
One is substantiated by tons of evidence and contradicted by none, the other one is contradicted by tons evidence and supported by none. None. As in zero, zilch, nada.

It is certainly not unethical to present multiple points of view. indeed is something admirable and to be strongly encouraged. But it is unethical to present one point of view as a credible alternative when it is already known that it is not.

Going back to the math example, yes, if someone was calling the concept of five, "6" than it would be acceptable to say 4+1=5 or 6, depending on the mathematical language we are using.
But this is not about semantics. it is about insisting that the correct answer is 6 when we know that "6" implies "six" and not "five".
So if you want to rebadge evolution creationism, without changing what evolution is or what it implies, be my guest. Then you can go into schools and teach the correct system and say "some call it evolution, some call it creation, but it is the very same thing".
If the bible had described a scientifically sound and provable system, than that would be supported by the scientific community.
But as it happens, it didn't.
It described something that made sense to the peoples of 5000 years ago, and that was consistent with their knowledge at the time. Only, that knowledge has now vastly improved, and that old description is quite obviously not adequate anymore.

This is the crux of the issue:

Creationism is not faulty because it is stems out of religion.
it is faulty because it is incorrect.

it is irrelevant where it comes from. scientist object to it because it is wrong.
On the other hand, you appear to support it not on its own merit, not because what it posits is credible or substantiated in any way, but purely because of where it comes from.

[Mousse]

Even science cannot prove everything in an absolute sense.

Exactly. Those claiming science proves this or that doesn't understand how the scientific process. Science doesn't not prove anything, it only disproves. Once a theory is proven wrong, it's thrown out. There's a saying among real scientist: "Although I'm not always right; I'm never, ever wrong."

What we accept as scientific truths now are theories that have yet to be shown wrong. Science once claimed the world was flat. That was disproven, so we know accept that the world is round. Science once claimed that 4 elements (earth, fire, wind & water) exists, that's been disproven as well (periodic table). Scientist once said, "The is no water on the moon." Now the discover water on the moon. So was the no water on the moon right or wrong? It was accepted as right until it was proven wrong, then it is wrong. Simple.

Until God is proven not to exist, their will be scientist who will believe in God. Science and Religion are not exclusive. Science gives us the Big Bang Theory. This is the currently accepted idea of creation. Nothing existed, then Bam! the universe came into existence; starting out smaller than an atom to continually expand to this day. This is more credible than the idea of an omnipotent being creating the universe (possibly by triggering the Big Bang;)) is a greater leap of faith than any I've ever encountered.

[SLC Flyfishing]

So if I make up a religion on the spot with all types of weird and draconian rules and it suddenly becomes the majority relgiion in the US you would be for intertwining it in our law system even if it meant the US would be worse off for it?

In one sense yes, because thats the system we have and I happen to think it's a good system. But if I didn't adhere to your particular religious belief, then I'd do what I could to influence the laws to reflect more of what I would like them to be. That is sort of the whole point I was trying to make...that we all have some ability to influence the way things go in our country based upon our personally held views on issues. Sometimes our religion or lack thereof influences what our stance on issues is, it's good that we can do that.

[Don't panic]

I agree with this 100% and is pretty much where I was hoping the dialogue would eventually go.

I wonder how much of today's problems (read the problem with islamic extremism) stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of what the other side's motivations might be.

I think mandatory religious education could be a great thing.

I get the feeling that most of your opposition to the teaching of religious principles in school stems from your fear that some people might just decide to adopt that belief system. Which you disagree with personally, and don't want the public to officially condone. Why do you care what other people decide to believe, and adhere to in their personal lives?

I would be totally for having a mandatory Comparative Religions Class, including current and past (major) religions in public schools.
As long as it is not presented as if one, or any, is the "true" religion.
That is, you should be teaching about religious principles, not religious principles, as that would be indoctrination.

That would truly be a fantastic endeavor.
but I have a pretty strong feeling that those opposing this would be the religious kind, not the secular bunch.