Isn't science supposed to contradict religion?

Vampireskiss

There would be little need for faith otherwise which is the whole point?

Dades

Science isn't supposed to do anything but attempt to increase our understanding the universe. It will inevitably contradict some things claimed true by religions.

Húrin

No.

Well, it depends. Supposed by who? Richard Dawkins might say yes, but that's confirmation bias for you.

No, of course it isn't.

But, if a scientific concept contradicts a religious idea, then, the religious idea should be abandoned.

ZondaChai

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

ZondaChai

ZondaChai wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

Marriage isn't necessarily a religious sacrament anymore - afterall, you don't have to get married in a church; marriage doesn't have to be valid in the eyes of God anymore.

sink

ZondaChai wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

Greatest living atheist?!! Loudest maybe!

challengemaster

ZondaChai wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

Is his wife though? I'm sure that many people may, for their partner, have a wedding / marraige ceremony that suits THEIR beliefs out of love for them.

Also seconded to what JD said.

science [Lat. scientia=knowledge]. For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.

I don't see anywhere there stated 'science is to prove religion wrong'. It may happen through scientific experimentation that religious beliefs are found to be false, but its hardly the purpose of science.

ZondaChai

Mabey not the greatest, but if todays athiest's put together a charity football team, he would definetly be on the substitutes bench. Picture it, Pope Ratzinger the star ringer leading the front line for religion, when out of nowhere, the athiests throw on their impact sub, the deadly Dawkins.

eoin5

Religion contradicts religion enough, theres no need to task science with the job.

Zombrex

Vampireskiss wrote: »

There would be little need for faith otherwise which is the whole point?

The purpose of science is to model the universe to discover how things work.

This has lead it, rather by accident, into conflict with religion because long before modern science came about religious people were making claims about the universe and how it worked.

The religious people were just guessing though and, like all human endeavour, ending being wrong a lot of the time.

Not such a big deal in of itself (science is wrong as well most of the time), the mistake the religious people did was proclaiming authority to know this stuff through communion with a higher authority (gods mostly, or spirits, or giants etc etc). So it becomes a bit harder to go "Whoops we got that wrong" when you are invoking an authority that is supposed to be never wrong.

Which leads to conflict.

Religion proclaims something, scientific study comes along and shows that a more accurate explanation contradicts the religious proclamation, the religious people get mad because they made the claim by invoking a higher authority, and now they (of the followers who come after them) look like they don't actually communicate with said higher authority.

When religion bases most of its own authority on the idea that it represents a higher authority, any indication that it is not actually in communion with this higher authority is a threat to its own authority, and as such conflict can and often does arise.

A good example is the Biblical Flood. Of all the Bible stories it is the easiest to pick out as something that simply did not happen. There was no flood that wiped out all humans. There was no flood that wiped out all land animals. Despite this a good number of Christians take the Biblical Flood as an event that is supposed to be taken as a historic event.

And for a good number of Christians this has lead to a conflict between religion and science. Science did not set out to disprove the Flood. Science simply models how things work and worked, such as floods and geology, oil deposits and human biology. In all these fields of studies the Flood does not fit. But then neither does a whole host of other religious stories from around the world that also never happened.

A lot of religious people, Christians Muslims Hindus, don't like this. If the science says these events most likely didn't happen then the science is wrong. They you see, have communication from the higher power. They already know what is true and what isn't true. If they don't actually have communication with the higher power then this has ramifications in their lives that go far beyond the science.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

The purpose of science is to model the universe to discover how things work.

This has lead it, rather by accident, into conflict with religion because long before modern science came about religious people were making claims about the universe and how it worked.

The religious people were just guessing though and, like all human endeavour, ending being wrong a lot of the time.

Religion proclaims something, scientific study comes along and shows that a more accurate explanation contradicts the religious proclamation, the religious people get mad because they made the claim by invoking a higher authority, and now they (of the followers who come after them) look like they don't actually communicate with said higher authority.

A lot of religious people, Christians Muslims Hindus, don't like this. If the science says these events most likely didn't happen then the science is wrong. They you see, have communication from the higher power. They already know what is true and what isn't true. If they don't actually have communication with the higher power then this has ramifications in their lives that go far beyond the science.

I suppose you will get those that argue that religion is anti-science. You also get those who arrgue that the bible should be taken literally.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Most Christians who discuss issues are more interested in moral or philosophical issues.

Science is neutral really as religion should be neutral on science.

Oh the cowboy and the farmer should be friends

stevencarrwork

Vampireskiss wrote: »

There would be little need for faith otherwise which is the whole point?

You need faith that Jesus ascended into the sky and disappeared into a cloud on his way to Heaven, because science teaches us that such a journey into the sky would only have got Jesus to Uranus.

MatthewVII

stevencarrwork wrote: »

You need faith that Jesus ascended into the sky and disappeared into a cloud on his way to Heaven, because science teaches us that such a journey into the sky would only have got Jesus to Uranus.

He would of course have died long before he got there due to travelling through the vacuum of space. Would have made for an interesting end to his story - Jesus was raised up to the clouds - and exploded.

Matt Holck

there was an add mocking Monty Python and the Holy Grail
but I can't remember the product

CDfm

MatthewVII wrote: »

He would of course have died long before he got there due to travelling through the vacuum of space. Would have made for an interesting end to his story - Jesus was raised up to the clouds - and exploded.

All that is telling you is that JC was not bound by the laws of Science.

Science is supposed to explain the universe to use and give us the skills and resourses to make the best of it.

Religous stuff is seperate and its about faith and mysteries and the inexplicable.

Science will tell you how to hang a man -religion will debate whether or not its moral.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Religous stuff is seperate and its about faith and mysteries and the inexplicable.

I'll grant you religion's only territory is the inexplicable. A territory that continues to diminish hugely over time.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I'll grant you religion's only territory is the inexplicable. A territory that continues to diminish hugely over time.

I cant see anything incompatable between science and religion.

There are bits like stem cell research that are controvercial but they are small areas and involve moral and philosphical issues that trancend religion anyway.

In the main religion should not be used to restrict science or scientific theory or investigation. A theory may be wrong but it goes to building a body of knowledge and often needs to be investigated to exclude it.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

I'll grant you religion's only territory is the inexplicable. A territory that continues to diminish hugely over time.

Thanks God for that.

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

Thanks God for that.

And you say the Universe is still expanding

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Science will tell you how to hang a man -religion will debate whether or not its moral.

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

One thing you conspicuously lack: an example. Religion does not make proclamations about general principles of physical reality.

What do you mean by "communicated, physically"? Do you think that God communicated with prophets by post, so there's a paper trail somewhere? (please, nobody say "the Bible" because that was written by divinely-inspired men, not directly by God). There are no physical pretences. God exists outside the universe.

For instance, the resurrection of Jesus is probably as physical as Christianity gets. And yet it has not been disproven despite two thousand years of people trying with various levels of scientific rigour.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

For instance, the resurrection of Jesus is probably as physical as Christianity gets. And yet it has not been disproven despite two thousand years of people trying with various levels of scientific rigour.

Similarly, it has yet to be proven. So which should we accept? I don't see any reason for leaning either way, but logic tells us that it is unlikely to have happened. And so the world keeps spinning.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

Science seeks to explain things and does so based on the sum of the knowledge it has. Many atheist scientists believe science can explain all and are confident they will get answers for everything.

Is it arrogance. I dont know.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Religion does not make proclamations about general principles of physical reality.

Indeed it does -- there are many christians people out there who think that sickness is caused by bad spirits or god's revenge, or that praying for a plane to stay in the air is going to work, or that the world was made in a week around 20,000 years after the domestication of the dog, or (in non-physical reality) that people wanting to do bad things is the fault of a guy with a trident and a forked tail.

There are many more examples.

MatthewVII

CDfm wrote: »

Science seeks to explain things and does so based on the sum of the knowledge it has. Many atheist scientists believe science can explain all and are confident they will get answers for everything.

Is it arrogance. I dont know.

No, scientists who believe that they will eventually explain everything are basing that belief on the evidence that they have already explained a vast number of phenomena which were previously misunderstood. It stands to reason that over time, science will explain more and more. I'm not sure about it explaining everything, but I'm pretty sure it'll explain most of it.

What is arrogant is thinking that one knows best because they believe that a deity has revealed themselves, and to make judgements based on information they believe is fundamentally infallible.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I dont know.

This much is clear

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

One thing you conspicuously lack: an example. Religion does not make proclamations about general principles of physical reality.

Religion makes proclamations all the time about principles of physical reality. God exists is a proclamation about physical reality. He created the universe, Earth and man, is a proclamation about physical reality.

Húrin wrote: »

What do you mean by "communicated, physically"? Do you think that God communicated with prophets by post, so there's a paper trail somewhere?

No I think God communicated audio-visually with men and women, at least according to your holy book. Sound is vibration of air particles at varying frequencies. Light is the vibration of the electromagnetic field at varying frequencies.

As for the Bible God is supposed to have directly written some parts of it, such as the commandments given to Moses.

Húrin wrote: »

There are no physical pretences. God exists outside the universe.

Which is still part of existence.

Húrin wrote: »

For instance, the resurrection of Jesus is probably as physical as Christianity gets. And yet it has not been disproven despite two thousand years of people trying with various levels of scientific rigour.

I think scientists have pretty conclusively demonstrated that people do not come back to life after being crucified :rolleyes:

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Science seeks to explain things and does so based on the sum of the knowledge it has. Many atheist scientists believe science can explain all and are confident they will get answers for everything.

Is it arrogance. I dont know.

Given that without already knowing what "all" is such a statement is some what nonsensical, I would be interested in discussing that assertion with these atheists scientists.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Indeed it does -- there are many christians people out there who think that sickness is caused by bad spirits or god's revenge, or that praying for a plane to stay in the air is going to work, or that the world was made in a week around 20,000 years after the domestication of the dog, or (in non-physical reality) that people wanting to do bad things is the fault of a guy with a trident and a forked tail.

There are many more examples.

Maybe some fundamentalists but they are not mainstream.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe some fundamentalists but they are not mainstream.

Well, let's take another example -- I reckon most or even all christians believe that praying to their deity is going to help cure their illness, improve their chances of winning the lottery, or make their car journey safer.