Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,246 Year: 5,503/9,624 Month: 528/323 Week: 25/143 Day: 15/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion or Science - How do they compare?
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1881 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 31 of 882 (831835)
04-24-2018 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
04-23-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Faith writes:
"Lean not unto your own understanding" is good advice to fallen humanity so prone to error, when we have God who is omniscient and willing to guide us to the truth: "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
The Fall. It’s been the perfect excuse for when something doesn’t look right about Christian religion: It’s our fault that we cannot understand God’s ways because we are fallen beings. The sense of guilt and the idea that we need the religious authorities to make sense of God for us, have kept people believing false, damaging and outdated doctrines that so often have been a drag to progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 2:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 9:19 PM Paboss has replied

  
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1881 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 32 of 882 (831837)
04-24-2018 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by GDR
04-24-2018 4:53 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
GDR writes:
You contend that there is no god but you have no actual evidence of that.
There is something called The burden of proof which falls on those making the claim, in this case, that there is a god. For one being faced with no evidence for such a claim, the rational default position is to assume that it does not exist. Here’s an important difference between Religion and Science: While the former has been an attempt at explaining things which are not understood by making up explanations, the latter is the search for explanations starting from an open position of ignorance and curiosity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 04-24-2018 4:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 04-28-2018 2:14 AM Paboss has replied

  
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1881 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 33 of 882 (831838)
04-24-2018 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by GDR
04-24-2018 5:10 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
GDR writes:
Of course we don't KNOW the truth. We all choose what we believe to be true. We can look at the world where the idea that sacrificial love is valued in a culture, the better the culture has done.
Christianity over History has done good and bad things (I personally think more bad than good). One good thing it did was to encourage caring for those in disadvantage. Christian institutions provided education, hospitals and general social welfare back when those where responsibility of the Church. Today, in Western societies more and more of that falls on hands of secular institutions. I think Christian philosophy made a good contribution in encouraging caring for the people in need, but that in itself gives not value of true to all the doctrines that the church propagated through its social outreach programme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 04-24-2018 5:10 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 34 of 882 (831953)
04-28-2018 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Paboss
04-24-2018 10:25 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Paboss writes:
There is something called The burden of proof which falls on those making the claim, in this case, that there is a god. For one being faced with no evidence for such a claim, the rational default position is to assume that it does not exist.
It is a fact that we exist. It is a fact that ultimately there is a reason we exist. It is a fact that science has discerned processes by which life as we know it evolved. There is no discernible evidence that these processes were the result of other mindless processes going back to the point of the Big Bang. Therefore the rational default position is that we are the result of processes that are the result of pre-existing intelligence.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Paboss, posted 04-24-2018 10:25 PM Paboss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2018 2:49 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 39 by Paboss, posted 04-28-2018 6:57 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 35 of 882 (831956)
04-28-2018 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
04-28-2018 2:14 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
quote:
It is a fact that we exist. It is a fact that ultimately there is a reason we exist. It is a fact that science has discerned processes by which life as we know it evolved. There is no discernible evidence that these processes were the result of other mindless processes going back to the point of the Big Bang. Therefore the rational default position is that we are the result of processes that are the result of pre-existing intelligence
You will note that this argument is a massive non-sequitur.
By parsimony the rational default certainly does not involve making up a pre-existing intelligence. And that is before we even considered the demonstrated ability of non-intelligent forces to produce so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 04-28-2018 2:14 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2018 3:27 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 36 of 882 (831961)
04-28-2018 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
04-28-2018 2:49 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
PaulK writes:
You will note that this argument is a massive non-sequitur.
He knows because he's been told many times. But he keeps making the same logical errors.
(Let alone the fact that even if the logic led to such an intelligence, he still has 99% of the work left to do to show that this assumed intelligence has anything to do with his own interfering god and all that it entails with its 'bells and smells'.)
But it does ask the question of why believers keep making the same mistakes when trying to make their case?
I don't even know why they bother at all. If it was my belief I'd just claim it as a belief, why the hell try to rationalise it?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2018 2:49 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-28-2018 9:44 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 38 by Paboss, posted 04-28-2018 6:28 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 37 of 882 (831967)
04-28-2018 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tangle
04-28-2018 3:27 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
I don't even know why they bother at all. If it was my belief I'd just claim it as a belief, why the hell try to rationalize it?
Good advice!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2018 3:27 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1881 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


(1)
Message 38 of 882 (832007)
04-28-2018 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tangle
04-28-2018 3:27 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Tangle writes:
But it does ask the question of why believers keep making the same mistakes when trying to make their case?
I don't even know why they bother at all. If it was my belief I'd just claim it as a belief, why the hell try to rationalise it?
I am a former Christian. Looking to understand more about God I made the mistake of reading the entire Bible. I read it complete at least three times hoping the Holy Spirit would guide me to understand the things I didn’t before. It always made me uncomfortable the overwhelming amount of problems that the Bible has: Absurd claims, lots of contradictions; and worse than that, the horrible moral values of the biblical god. I wanted badly to maintain my faith; it was inconceivable to lose it. When you are a strong believer, it is really scary to think you could lose your faith, because you think your life would lose meaning. So I tried to rationalise all those problems I saw with the Bible, but never managed to find satisfactory excuses. Eventually I got fed up with the bullshit, and realised that I had to embrace reality. I cannot speak for every believer, but I’m sure there are many who find themselves in the dilemma I once was in, and try to make rationalisations because they are afraid of losing their faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2018 3:27 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 8:46 PM Paboss has not replied

  
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1881 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 39 of 882 (832010)
04-28-2018 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
04-28-2018 2:14 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
GDR writes:
It is a fact that we exist. It is a fact that ultimately there is a reason we exist.
Yes, it is a fact we exist, so?
When you say that ultimately there is a reason we exist, you mean it as in purpose or you mean it as in there is an explanation as to how we got here? I suspect you are inclined to the former. But that is not a fact. It does not have to be a purpose for our existence just as there is not purpose on people getting cancer or there is no purpose on someone winning the Lottery; it just happens. While Religion pretends there is a why and pretends to answer it, Science seeks to answer how.
GDR writes:
There is no discernible evidence that these processes were the result of other mindless processes going back to the point of the Big Bang. Therefore the rational default position is that we are the result of processes that are the result of pre-existing intelligence.
Once again you are shifting the burden of proof to where it doesn’t belong. The problem is that there is no evidence of those processes being devised by any intelligent agency, let alone specifically the Christian god. As PaulK and Tangle pointed out, you are jumping to illogical conclusions. But even if we could ever establish that there is a pre-existing intelligence, we would be back in the same position, as we would need to explain how it came to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 04-28-2018 2:14 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by GDR, posted 05-12-2018 4:05 PM Paboss has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 882 (832020)
04-28-2018 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Paboss
04-28-2018 6:28 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
This story is very common these days. I don't understand how anyone could ever have considered himself to be a Christian without knowing at least what is IN the Bible from hearing sermons on it. Perhaps the fault is in those churches that don't preach the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Paboss, posted 04-28-2018 6:28 PM Paboss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 12:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 04-29-2018 1:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 882 (832023)
04-28-2018 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Paboss
04-24-2018 10:12 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
"Lean not unto your own understanding" is good advice to fallen humanity so prone to error, when we have God who is omniscient and willing to guide us to the truth: "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
The Fall. It’s been the perfect excuse for when something doesn’t look right about Christian religion: It’s our fault that we cannot understand God’s ways because we are fallen beings. The sense of guilt and the idea that we need the religious authorities to make sense of God for us, have kept people believing false, damaging and outdated doctrines that so often have been a drag to progress.
When I was becoming a Christian in my mid-to-late forties in the late eighties, entirely from reading books about religion, I found the doctrine of the Fall/original sin to be the most amazingly illuminating thing I'd ever heard. It explains just about everything about our current condition, our propensity to sin, to disobey all God's laws, and our lack of communication with God, it explains war and violence and murder, just about everything. Nothing makes sense without it.
We are magnificent creatures, I've always felt that, and that "science" is so determined to demote and degrade us there has to be something wrong with science. Something I felt long before I was a Christian. But we are also broken creatures. Biblical doctrine explains that we were meant for a high destiny but that disobedience of our Creator cut us off from that high destiny. That fits what I always felt about human beings better than I could ever have thought it. And then on top of that I find out that God has given us a way to recover our high destiny out of love for us, and it reduces me to tears of gratitude.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Paboss, posted 04-24-2018 10:12 PM Paboss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 1:03 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 63 by Paboss, posted 05-02-2018 7:18 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 42 of 882 (832035)
04-29-2018 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
04-28-2018 8:46 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
quote:
This story is very common these days. I don't understand how anyone could ever have considered himself to be a Christian without knowing at least what is IN the Bible from hearing sermons on it.
People who rely on sermons will have a very poor understanding of the Bible. You’ll get opinions and doctrines mixed up with the text - which is selectively quoted if at all. Reading the Bible will let you find that it isn’t as the preachers present it - especially the preachers you prefer.
Perhaps you would be more accurate in saying:
I don't understand how anyone could ever have considered himself to be a Christian without refusing to know what is IN the Bible by trusting sermons instead of reading it
One of the big things of the Reformation was encouraging people to read the Bible. You seem to think that was a bad thing.
quote:
Perhaps the fault is in those churches that don't preach the Bible?
Wouldn’t preaching the Bible mean admitting to the problems ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 8:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 3:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 43 of 882 (832036)
04-29-2018 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
04-28-2018 9:19 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
quote:
When I was becoming a Christian in my mid-to-late forties in the late eighties, entirely from reading books about religion, I found the doctrine of the Fall/original sin to be the most amazingly illuminating thing I'd ever heard. It explains just about everything about our current condition, our propensity to sin, to disobey all God's laws, and our lack of communication with God, it explains war and violence and murder, just about everything. Nothing makes sense without
According to Calvinism, God deliberately arranged the Fall. How does it make sense to you that God wanted all the things you attribute to it ?
Indeed, even if we discount Calvinistic ideas it is hard to see how it could happen without God at least laying in the groundwork (for no apparent reason) and intentionally allowing things to play out as He knew he would.
Maybe you think repurposing the Genesis story as an excuse to blame people for the state of the world was a great idea. But it doesn’t really work with Christian ideas of God. Which is really obvious if you read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 9:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 44 of 882 (832037)
04-29-2018 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
04-28-2018 8:46 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Faith writes:
This story is very common these days. I don't understand how anyone could ever have considered himself to be a Christian without knowing at least what is IN the Bible from hearing sermons on it. Perhaps the fault is in those churches that don't preach the Bible?
These days?
For almost the entire time that the bible stories have existed virtually no one read them. Firstly beacuse the early parts are simple campfire talking stories not written down. Later because printing needed to be invented before it was cheap enough distribute widely and later still because only the priests could read.
So the great unwashed got edited highlights from the pulpit and were told whatever was thought best to keep them in their place. Even in my time the mass was said in Latin.
I bet very, very few so-called Christians have actually read the entire bible and those that have selectively read it. I've read it only once cover to cover. It's a shockingly immoral book in places and to think anyone could believe the early stuff about 7 days of creation, apples, snakes, floods and pillars of salt are literally true is depressing in this day and age.
I wonder, when was the last time you read the bible end to end?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 8:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 882 (832042)
04-29-2018 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
04-29-2018 12:54 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
I'm talking about the practice of preaching the Bible through, that some preachers do, usually taking a book and working through it over a long period of time, in some cases years. They preach on only one segment for a sermon or may even take a series of Sundays on that one segment and it may be just a few verses. If you hear this kind of preaching you will note that they often refer to various commentaries they've been studying about the passage, discussing where they agree and disagree, which avoids the effect you are expecting of just getting a personal opinion. It also involves many excursions into other parts of the Bible that are related to the particular topic of the moment. This method of preaching is becoming a more common practice as there is a Reformed movement going on that has been going on a few decades now, that promotes this approach to sermons. You do learn a lot of Bible this way.
There is another approach that is just as good I think, which is to take a topic, say original sin or anything you like, and preach on all the texts that apply to that topic in various ways, quoting them all and discussing them all and making use of commentaries as well.
As of course you know, up until the printing press people didn't have Bibles of their own so they couldn't read them, they had to listen to them preached in church, and since the Roman Church forbade the Bible to be read in the people's languages they really couldn't get a lot out of it at all and instead lived a life of pagan superstition that had nothing to do with Christianity. In the earliest days the people also had to rely on the preacher as their source of knowledge of the Bible. Before the Bible was compiled as a single book the leaders of the churches read the separate writings, the gospels, the letters of the apostles and so on. There have also always been those down the centuries who did preach and teach the Bible accurately as well.
Of course we should all read the Bible for ourselves. I was responding to the fact that Paboss apparently didn't know the Bible although he considered himself a strong Christian, so when he sat down to read it he discovered all these things about it that offended him. So I figure he wasn't getting much preaching on it either.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 12:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 4:10 AM Faith has replied
 Message 112 by Paboss, posted 05-06-2018 3:39 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024