Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do we need science to back up religion?
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 50 (11562)
06-14-2002 2:42 AM


Some religions (esp. Islam) stated that their scripture includes scientific findings, thereby being the right one. Is there any merit for this position? Should a religion have a scientific back-up?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 06-14-2002 8:32 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 06-16-2002 12:00 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-17-2002 8:41 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 06-26-2002 1:24 PM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 44 by KingPenguin, posted 08-20-2002 1:39 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 50 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2002 5:00 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 50 (11573)
06-14-2002 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
06-14-2002 2:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Some religions (esp. Islam) stated that their scripture includes scientific findings, thereby being the right one. Is there any merit for this position? Should a religion have a scientific back-up?
I think the better question is "Can a religion which wishes to have a scientific backup support it's claims scientifically?" So far, this hasn't happened.
The only reason any religions want to use science to strengthen their case is to get more people to follow the given religion.
IMO it cheapens both religion and science to try to "prove" the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran with a science. If religion is based upon faith, then why does it need to be proven by modern science? Is faith so weak that it requires constant proving?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-14-2002 2:42 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-14-2002 9:44 AM nator has replied
 Message 5 by John, posted 06-14-2002 10:34 AM nator has not replied

  
Andor
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 50 (11574)
06-14-2002 9:13 AM


My opinion is that science and religion are two completely separated and independent, though not incompatible, fields.
Every one of these fields represents an aspect of knowledge, science is the "how", religion (and philosophy) is the "why".
You and I can be interested in both fields, but the fields themselves should NEVER mix: To confuse the facts with their possible meaning, only can lead to explosive situations.

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 50 (11575)
06-14-2002 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
06-14-2002 8:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

IMO it cheapens both religion and science to try to "prove" the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran with a science. If religion is based upon faith, then why does it need to be proven by modern science? Is faith so weak that it requires constant proving?

Religion is based on faith- but faith doesn't mean believing something that is wrong or ludicrous. Also, YECs don't try to "prove" the bible- they simply try to interpret evidence under a biblical model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 06-14-2002 8:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 06-16-2002 10:36 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 9 by Tertulian, posted 06-16-2002 11:06 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 50 (11578)
06-14-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
06-14-2002 8:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

I think the better question is "Can a religion which wishes to have a scientific backup support it's claims scientifically?" So far, this hasn't happened.

I don't like the division between science and religion. It divides the world, I think, artificially. If something-- anything-- intersects our experience we ought to be able to study it. And religion-- God for example, certainly would intersect our experience.
In other words, how is it possible that something-- a miracle, say-- effect the world and it not be quantifiable? Take prayer. If prayer works wonders, a simple study ought to verify it. 30% of prayed-for cancer patients survive vs. the 10% survival of not-prayed-for patients-- that sort of thing.
The alternative is that the tenants of religion-- the supernatural or some such-- are real but don't effect anything. If so, I don't see the point. No effects, no consequences... might as well not be.
So, yeah, I think religion ought to be scientifically back-up-able.
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 06-14-2002 8:32 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 06-14-2002 11:13 AM John has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 50 (11582)
06-14-2002 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
06-14-2002 10:34 AM


Studies have been done on the positive effects of prayer on health and recovery, and I'm sure someone here can point us to information on the web. My guess is that such studies are not scientifically valid because they would need to be double-blind where the patient doesn't know if he's being prayed for or who is praying for him, and the person doing the praying doesn't know which patient they're praying for, if any.
Naturally you couldn't have a blind study where the patient prays for himself. I suppose you could have a comparative study, though, where they measure the relative success rates of praying Catholics against praying Baptists and so forth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 06-14-2002 10:34 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 06-14-2002 11:41 AM Percy has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 50 (11587)
06-14-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
06-14-2002 11:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
My guess is that such studies are not scientifically valid because they would need to be double-blind where the patient doesn't know if he's being prayed for or who is praying for him, and the person doing the praying doesn't know which patient they're praying for, if any.
--Percy

Right. It would certainly have to be a properly done study.
I have a link to one such study.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9903/07/religion.health/
Sorry if that has been posted here before. I don't remember where I found the link.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 06-14-2002 11:13 AM Percy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 50 (11638)
06-16-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cobra_snake
06-14-2002 9:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Religion is based on faith- but faith doesn't mean believing something that is wrong or ludicrous. Also, YECs don't try to "prove" the bible- they simply try to interpret evidence under a biblical model.
The belief in the worldwide Biblical Flood, for example, has no physical evidence to support it.
YEC'ers believe in it first and then attempt to find support for a global flood in physical natural evidence while ignoring all evidence which points away from such an event.
You can call it "interpreting evidence under a Biblical perspective" if you want to; it certainly sounds better phrased that way. At day's end, however, it's still and exercise in trying to prove the Bible true.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-14-2002 9:44 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 50 (11639)
06-16-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cobra_snake
06-14-2002 9:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Religion is based on faith- but faith doesn't mean believing something that is wrong or ludicrous. Also, YECs don't try to "prove" the bible- they simply try to interpret evidence under a biblical model.
Faith IS irrational! It IS the belief in something wrong and ludicrous! You can't see a god. You can't prove he/she/it exists. And yet millions/billions of people believe in a supernatural being. This belief is irrational. Why does one believe in something they can't see or prove, even to themselves? A book? They need science in order to validate their positions. Otherwise, it is just "dust in the wind".
A biblical model cannot stand on its own when confronted with all kinds of scientific evidence. The evidence is 'mutated' to fit these kinds of models.
The answer to the TOPIC "Do we need science to back-up religion", is a resounding "YES!!". It needs all the help it can get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-14-2002 9:44 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-17-2002 7:54 PM Tertulian has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 10 of 50 (11642)
06-16-2002 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
06-14-2002 2:42 AM


I think it's pretty horrifying when people judge moral guilt or innocense with scientific certitude, so I don't think religion needs backup from science.
Religion is of the heart, and science is of the mind, and in the struggle between them, the heart should always win. Maybe corny, but still basicly true in my opinion.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-14-2002 2:42 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 06-16-2002 11:02 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 50 (11676)
06-16-2002 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
06-16-2002 12:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think it's pretty horrifying when people judge moral guilt or innocense with scientific certitude, so I don't think religion needs backup from science.
Religion is of the heart, and science is of the mind, and in the struggle between them, the heart should always win. Maybe corny, but still basicly true in my opinion.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So, should a child be denied a blood transfusion which would save her life (science/mind) because her parents follow a religion which forbids such procedures (religion/heart)?
There need not be any struggle between science and religion. The only struggle which occurs is when religion demands that one must believe despite what science has discovered about the world.
IOW, religions cause this struggle because they cannot or will not change and grow, and they demand that their followers keep their minds in ancient times.
What kind of God/gods would take joy in followers who purposefully stunted their divinely-created intellects, choosing to remain ignorant and narrow-minded?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 06-16-2002 12:00 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 50 (11710)
06-17-2002 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tertulian
06-16-2002 11:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tertulian:
Faith IS irrational! It IS the belief in something wrong and ludicrous! You can't see a god. You can't prove he/she/it exists. And yet millions/billions of people believe in a supernatural being. This belief is irrational. Why does one believe in something they can't see or prove, even to themselves? A book? They need science in order to validate their positions. Otherwise, it is just "dust in the wind".
A biblical model cannot stand on its own when confronted with all kinds of scientific evidence. The evidence is 'mutated' to fit these kinds of models.
The answer to the TOPIC "Do we need science to back-up religion", is a resounding "YES!!". It needs all the help it can get.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley0.html
Read the debate. I'm not saying that Craig whoops the competition completely- but contrary to your rather pessimistic assertions of the lack of any intellectual reasons to believe in God- there is a good basis (intellectually) for being a theist. Also, YEC is not neccesary for religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tertulian, posted 06-16-2002 11:06 AM Tertulian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 12:08 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 50 (11711)
06-17-2002 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
06-14-2002 2:42 AM


The answer to the original post really depends on whether religions have to be 'mystical' or 'legalistical' or can be considered to be potential realities. Christianity, as recorded in the Bible, is unambigously meant to be literal truth. The fact that many Christians practise either mystically or legalistically does not detract from the clear intention recorded in scripture.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-14-2002 2:42 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 50 (11736)
06-18-2002 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Cobra_snake
06-17-2002 7:54 PM


I've read better debates on bathroom walls. Both sides, Craig and Tooley, were severely lacking in content. Craig appealed to abstract concepts for the proof of a god. But any of those proof, as Tooley mentioned, can be used for the existence of any supernatural creator. These 'proofs' are weak at best. Tooley pointed out some errors in his arguments but his debating skill are lacking (mine aren't any better). I didn't learn anything from that garbage.
I was laughing when Craig gave his 'proofs' or 'plausibility' of the existence of a god. He made a major mistake is the first of the two contentions. He said that "I. There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true, ". Atheism is not a world view. Atheism cannot be true or untrue. Atheism is the denial of theism, that's it, that's all, and nothing more. It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa. But that is off topic.
If there wasn't any modern science, there wouldn't be any serious objections to religion (they'd get burned at the stake). Now that scientists have removed the yoke of religion they are free to follow evidence instead of irrational faith.
quote:
there is a good basis (intellectually) for being a theist
What good 'intelectual' reasons? Those that Craig gave? Those are just poorly understood ideas. Sort of like the ancient Greeks thought that Apollo flew across the sky everyday in a chariot drawn by white swans. We certainly don't believe that anymore, although it does make good fantasy reading. Why do we need to need to project human attributes to unexplained abstract ideas? "God did it!" is not a valid answer to those ideas. Just because we do not know 'where it came from' or 'why it's here', does not put into supernatural providence.
quote:
Also, YEC is not neccesary for religion.
YEC, IS the religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-17-2002 7:54 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 06-18-2002 3:45 AM Tertulian has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 50 (11750)
06-18-2002 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tertulian
06-18-2002 12:08 AM


"YEC, IS the religion."
--No, actually a YEC is a Young Earth Creationist. This abbreviation does not conform to a particular religious perspective. There are Christian, Mormon, Muslim and what not YEC's.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 12:08 AM Tertulian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 06-18-2002 11:04 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 19 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 7:42 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 25 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-19-2002 6:35 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024