Why does it matter if religion is anti-scientific?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

Not "more" than, that is what a-theist means, a rejection of your beliefs about God.

I imagine you are making a connection between anti-science and anti-Christian, and yes I would agree.

Religious people are anti-science in the same way that atheists are anti-Christian, they reject the principles that each put forward.

I reject the idea that you know your concept of God is real and exists. I reject the idea that you can determine this in any meaningful fashion. You don't know, but you believe you do. And I think you are wrong.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not "more" than, that is what a-theist means, a rejection of your beliefs about God.

Ah, so an atheist is someone who rejects PDN's beliefs about God? I will add that to my ever-increasing dictionary of the Wicknightian language.

I imagine you are making a connection between anti-science and anti-Christian, and yes I would agree.

You imagine wrong.

Religious people are anti-science in the same way that atheists are anti-Christian, they reject the principles that each put forward.

I find that to be quite a remarkable statement. You think that religious people in general reject the principles of science?

axer

PDN wrote: »

You think that religious people in general reject the principles of science?

Exactly, thats what confuses me about religious people.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so an atheist is someone who rejects PDN's beliefs about God?

Well yes, what did you think an atheist was?

PDN wrote: »

You imagine wrong.

Ok, you were just shooting the breeze then. Anywhoo, the point still stands.

PDN wrote: »

I find that to be quite a remarkable statement. You think that religious people in general reject the principles of science?

Those that are aware of the principles of science. Those that aren't simply aren't aware of them.

Can you think of one reason you believe God exists that doesn't go against the principles of science?

Ickle Magoo

Húrin wrote: »

@ Ickle Magoo, it seems that your observation is more a case of fundamentalist theocracy clashing with science than religion in general doing so.

Not really, whole religions are built up around & entirely based on, their God & religious followers & the deeds of said God & followers. Religious script has gone from fact; to sacrosanct; to parable; to meaningful but not literally nor historically accurate. The goalposts keep changing as religion strives to defend itself from scientific advancement - that tells me that religion clashes with science - and not just the fundamentalists.

chozometroid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Religious script has gone from fact; to sacrosanct; to parable; to meaningful but not literally nor historically accurate.

Sorry to go on a tanget, but can you give an example of this?

Ickle Magoo

You can't think of any religious story once considered fact whose validity is now in question?

Most of the "miracles" could be included in that group. Creationism, floods, intelligent design, even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

When something tries to tell people that events happened a certain way, without any evidence and these events fly in the face of all the knowledge humans have worked so hard to develop, and then it also tries to downplay the importance of actual evidence and attempts to make a virtue out of just believing what it says and having faith instead of looking at the actual evidence and thinking critically about what you see, then yes, I think it is anti-science.

MrP

Oh I see and when I came back there were stem cells growing in my Petri Dish -explain that ?:D

CDfm

Science should be value neutral at least at it hypoteses stage.

Not all scientists are

chozometroid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can't think of any religious story once considered fact whose validity is now in question?

Most of the "miracles" could be included in that group. Creationism, floods, intelligent design, even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

I can see creationism, floods, and ID being rejected by atheists. The debates in those areas won't end.
But.....Jesus' resurrection being debated among Christians? They must not be Christians --maybe religious, but not Christians.
As far as it being debated by the general population....of course, it always has been.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can't think of any religious story once considered fact whose validity is now in question?

Most of the "miracles" could be included in that group. Creationism, floods, intelligent design, even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

Ickle - I am realy truly amazed at the level of debate about issues cited by atheists and that is not a bad thing.

On the ressurection can you cite a source or post a link.

I dont doubt you - what you say sounds on the level. In the 15 yo atheist thread the OP cited examples on faith matters which certainly were a surprise to me as a catholic and which seemed to fly against church teaching somewhat.But that what he wasa being told.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

By 'Christian population' you must be using that term in an incredibly vague cultural sense. Among Christians (those who have a commitment to following Christ) denial of the resurrection would most certainly be seen as heresy and totally incompatible with Christianity.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, what did you think an atheist was?

noun:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Those that are aware of the principles of science. Those that aren't simply aren't aware of them.

Can you think of one reason you believe God exists that doesn't go against the principles of science?

I believe God exists because I have experienced his work in my life, because I experience him answering my prayers, because I see the positive difference he makes in other peoples' lives, and because I read a revelation of Him in the Bible (a book that makes more sense in terms of morality, ethics, and an explanation of why the world is how it is than any other book I've ever read.)

Now, as I see it this discussion can go one of two ways.
a) You can start picking at the above reasons and disagreeing with my interpretation of what I've experienced. If so, fire away, I won't bother replying because I'm pretty sick of such off-topic diversionary tactics.
b) We can keep on topic by discussing whether the above reasons are non-scientific (ie lie outside the area of science) or are anti-scientific (go against the principles of science).

I would contend that my reasons for believing in God are non-scientific. They do not contradict any scientific principle. They are non-scientific in the same way as a discussion as to whether lying is always wrong is non-scientific, or it is non-scientific to wonder whether your girlfriend really loves you. Such questions are not anti-scientific.

I really don't see what the problem is here. You can be religious and be a devoted scientist just as you can be a devoted scientist yet believe in falling in love, or to have a belief that some things are inherently morally wrong. The idea that science is some overarching all-consuming monster that must fight anything that it can't control is one that I find both amusing and frightening. It causes seemingly otherwise rational people to become paranoid and to attack anything that is non-scientific as being antii-scientific. From that it is a short step until the same fundamentalist bigots start decreeing that what they deem to be 'anti-scientific' is therefore hindering humanity and must be eradicated.

Then Hurin's sig quote from Sam Harris becomes rather ominous.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

Wow, you haven't a clue about history have you! I suppose if you assume that exceptions (Galileo) are actually the rule this might make sense. Feel free to comment. How can you think that humanity has a goal to which we are "progressing" if there is no purpose to the world?

Since you want to be nit picky, I'll spell it out clearer still. Religion has always done it, but doesn't do it always. A bit subtle, I know, sorry; I know not everyone gets subtle. If you think Galileo is the exception and not the norm, perhaps it is you who hasn't got a clue about history?

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Since you want to be nit picky, I'll spell it out clearer still. Religion has always done it, but doesn't do it always. A bit subtle, I know, sorry; I know not everyone gets subtle. If you think Galileo is the exception and not the norm, perhaps it is you who hasn't got a clue about history?

I'm starting to wonder if anyone has a clue about history.

Galileo was a devout Catholic believer in Christ who, because of his belief that God created a rational and orderly universe, carried out experiments and greatly advanced the cause of human knowledge.

Of course Gallileo did not come to his conclusions unaided. He built upon the theories of Copernicus - a clergyman. Copernicus' theories had been able to be published in Holland due to the Protestant Reformation allowing more freedom of thought there.

Galileo faced opposition from the Catholic Church because they did not like his theories, not on biblical or religious grounds, but because they contradicted the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of the day which was the teaching of Aristotle. (Remember him? He is one of the Greeks who are trumpeted by atheists as proving that the scientific method didn't develop as a result of Christianity). Indeed, according to the majority of scientists in Galileo's day, he would have been seen as unscientific, or even anti-scientific, because he was refusing to accept scientific orthodoxy.

Of course we might rightly question why the Catholic Church was acting as an enforcer in matters scientific. That was because the Church, for centuries, had been virtually the only people who were bothered about science at all or interested in the advancement of knowledge. So, more by default than anything else, they had come to be seen as the Royal Society & the Nobel Prize Committee of their day.

History is usually fairly complex, with peoples' actions deriving from a multitude of motives. Unfortunately there are those who rewrite history for ideological reasons. Therefore Galileo is often reinvented as a lone free-thinker battling against the nasty religious people. One of my favourite memories here on boards.ie is of the time an atheist seriously tried to argue, "If Galileo was alive today he would be an atheist ..." :pac:

BTW, while we're talking about about Copernicus, Galileo and historical ignorance, there is now a wonderful urban legend going the rounds that Copernicus was killed for believing that the earth orbited the sun. There is a website called echeat.com where people who are too stupid or too lazy to read books can cheat on their essays. I wonder how many have failed exams because, in their dishonesty, they were gullible enough to swallow the 'fact' that Copernicus gave his life for his beliefs? http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=57 I think there must be some echeats in Ireland, because I've seen the same urban legend repeated on this board before now.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

noun:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And you don't believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings?

PDN wrote: »

I believe God exists because I have experienced his work in my life, because I experience him answering my prayers, because I see the positive difference he makes in other peoples' lives, and because I read a revelation of Him in the Bible (a book that makes more sense in terms of morality, ethics, and an explanation of why the world is how it is than any other book I've ever read.)

Can you demonstrate any of that in a fashion that is verifiable independently from your own subjective assessment or opinion on the matter?

I imagine you will say you can't but that this is why it is non-scientific, something you never claimed otherwise. You are not claiming it is science to start with, which is true, you aren't.

Now here is the kicker. Does that matter?

Does it matter that you cannot verify, to scientific standards, any of what you are asserting/believing is real? Do you think it is important, is it necessary to do this?

Do you need to do any of this science stuff in order to accurately assess something is real to the point where you can say you know it is?

gaynorvader

PDN wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder if anyone has a clue about history.

Galileo was a devout Catholic believer in Christ who, because of his belief that God created a rational and orderly universe, carried out experiments and greatly advanced the cause of human knowledge.

Of course Gallileo did not come to his conclusions unaided. He built upon the theories of Copernicus - a clergyman. Copernicus' theories had been able to be published in Holland due to the Protestant Reformation allowing more freedom of thought there.

Galileo faced opposition from the Catholic Church because they did not like his theories, not on biblical or religious grounds, but because they contradicted the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of the day which was the teaching of Aristotle. (Remember him? He is one of the Greeks who are trumpeted by atheists as proving that the scientific method didn't develop as a result of Christianity). Indeed, according to the majority of scientists in Galileo's day, he would have been seen as unscientific, or even anti-scientific, because he was refusing to accept scientific orthodoxy.

Of course we might rightly question why the Catholic Church was acting as an enforcer in matters scientific. That was because the Church, for centuries, had been virtually the only people who were bothered about science at all or interested in the advancement of knowledge. So, more by default than anything else, they had come to be seen as the Royal Society & the Nobel Prize Committee of their day.

History is usually fairly complex, with peoples' actions deriving from a multitude of motives. Unfortunately there are those who rewrite history for ideological reasons. Therefore Galileo is often reinvented as a lone free-thinker battling against the nasty religious people. One of my favourite memories here on boards.ie is of the time an atheist seriously tried to argue, "If Galileo was alive today he would be an atheist ..." :pac:

BTW, while we're talking about about Copernicus, Galileo and historical ignorance, there is now a wonderful urban legend going the rounds that Copernicus was killed for believing that the earth orbited the sun. There is a website called echeat.com where people who are too stupid or too lazy to read books can cheat on their essays. I wonder how many have failed exams because, in their dishonesty, they were gullible enough to swallow the 'fact' that Copernicus gave his life for his beliefs? http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=57 I think there must be some echeats in Ireland, because I've seen the same urban legend repeated on this board before now.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter the beliefs the scientists at the time held, the fact that religious bodies held them back from expanding on their findings is what implies religion was at least anti-scientific. This does not mean a religious person cannot be scientific, but it can mean that religious beliefs interfere with some scientific processes/thoughts/whatever. This is not confined to relion, however. Scientists can be just as bad. For instance if any scientist accepts any law as being absolute, which many do, that could interfere with furthur/later scientific study. Imagine a scientist believes "e=mc^2, and therefore we can never go past the speed of light QED", and then someone comes along with a theory that the speed of light is not fixed, and can be changed using tachyons or something. The scientist believing in e=mc^2 will probably dismiss this new theory out of hand, this is just human nature, we seek to cling to something solid and tangable, atheists, agnostics and theists alike. I personally like to hold to the idea that science will advance to the point that we can solve all our problems by ourselves. Others choose God, it makes no odds.

On the subject of whether or not it matters that religion is anti-scientific or unscientific I would say it depends. Right now, we are teaching our children that religion is right, without offering any reason, this will encourage a child to just accept things out of hand and in my opinion that is wrong. Children should be encouraged to question everything, that is how they learn, and if they decide that Christianity is the best code to live by, fair dues. It is, after all, a personal choice.

Ickle Magoo

chozometroid wrote: »

I can see creationism, floods, and ID being rejected by atheists. The debates in those areas won't end.
But.....Jesus' resurrection being debated among Christians? They must not be Christians --maybe religious, but not Christians.
As far as it being debated by the general population....of course, it always has been.

Why not Christians? There are plenty of bona fide Christians who are not creationists, who don't believe in a whole raft of other biblical references being literal - is it so different for the resurrection to be seen as a powerful message or story rather than fact?

CDfm wrote: »

Ickle - I am realy truly amazed at the level of debate about issues cited by atheists and that is not a bad thing.

On the ressurection can you cite a source or post a link.

I dont doubt you - what you say sounds on the level. In the 15 yo atheist thread the OP cited examples on faith matters which certainly were a surprise to me as a catholic and which seemed to fly against church teaching somewhat.But that what he wasa being told.

Sure, CDfm.

As well as coming across references to doubt re literal translation in numerous religious sites, I have had regular discussions with Christians I know who have all but completely dismissed most of the Biblical transpiration of events as parables or fables rather than fact. I think the phrase I've heard used was "canteen Christians" - picking & choosing a portion of what they believed in a literal sense rather than the whole - but they still very much consider themselves Christian.

Here's what a quick google brought up re Christians doubting the validity of the resurrection:

http://www.pcusa.org/today/department/bibleexplorations/past/2007/bible-0407.htm

Matthew 28:16–20 Even Christ’s presence will never eliminate our struggles of faith. Both worship and doubt are part of Easter. ‘But some doubted’

Easter’s claims about the resurrection of Jesus are some of the most contested in history. Even some Christians find the resurrection of Jesus the most challenging of Bible miracles to believe. Skepticism about the resurrection on the part of non-Christians is to be expected. But for Christians to doubt whether Jesus really rose from the dead is awkward, embarrassing, unthinkable.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1302

[SIZE=+0]One church member might affirm the objectivity of the presence of the risen Christ as the first fruits of a new creation and still be entirely agnostic over the question of what occurred in the tomb. What was buried was flesh and blood; what confronted the apostles in the resurrection appearances was a new humanity. Who can know -- and who cares -- what happened to the atoms of Jesus’ body?[/SIZE]

http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/2004-04-11-Going-All-In-The-Third-Day-He-Rose-from-the-Dead/

Even some professing Christians say it doesn’t matter. One man put this way: “Without a doubt, Jesus was raised from the dead. It does not matter at all to me if He was ‘physically’ raised from the dead.”

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote:

Right now, we are teaching our children that religion is right, without offering any reason.

Not sure if I like the word 'religion' there. Anyway, a good Christian parent I'm certainly does offer reasons. I know I was offered reasons.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Not sure if I like the word 'religion' there. Anyway, a good Christian parent I'm certainly does offer reasons. I know I was offered reasons.

Where as I prefer to teach my children that being a decent human being is right.

MrP

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

Where as I prefer to teach my children that being a decent human being is right.

MrP

Good for you. Is there a point there relating to my previous post?

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Exactly, thats what confuses me about religious people.

Have you ever seen me post rejecting science?

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why not Christians? There are plenty of bona fide Christians who are not creationists, who don't believe in a whole raft of other biblical references being literal - is it so different for the resurrection to be seen as a powerful message or story rather than fact?



Sure, CDfm.

As well as coming across references to doubt re literal translation in numerous religious sites, I have had regular discussions with Christians I know who have all but completely dismissed most of the Biblical transpiration of events as parables or fables rather than fact

Thanks Ickle

A lot of the bible is allegorical and metaphorical.

People have been having doubts since St Thamas made his gaffe.So you have a precedent there for you.So anyone with doubts of faith should be left get on with it.

I get really offended when in church style sponsored activities you can get people preaching what purports to be catholic beliefs and isnt eg rejection of evolution. They are on a different type of theology then the official version.

Its not just on websites either that this happens.

cardshark202

God doesn't exist btw guys

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Have you ever seen me post rejecting science?

Go on, I dare ya!

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Go on, I dare ya!

It wouldnt be fair on AH's teaching skills and patient posting of some great video links for me(really). Funny AH's need to educate -could be a Christian meme.

But Im tempted:D

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Funny AH's need to educate -could be a Christian meme.

Dragan

Húrin wrote: »

Another spin-off from the topic of the week:

It seems that both sides of this debate find the arguments of the other entirely unconvincing. Perhaps they have different understandings of what science is. I do not think that religion is anti-scientific for reasons I have explained in other threads, but I know that atheist polemicists do think this.

So I ask the readers of this forum: does it matter if religion is anti-scientific? If so, why?

This only really applies if someone thinks the Why and the How are the same thing.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Good for you. Is there a point there relating to my previous post?

Kind of. I would prefer that my children grow up to believe that they can be good without the need of the crutch of religion.

A lot of the religious that post on these boards only seem to think they can be good because of some imaginary supernatural force that apparently lives in their heart. My point, I suppose, was that if children were taught that they can be good, outside of a religious framework; this might be more useful than having to explain why religion is good.

MrP

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

It wouldnt be fair on AH's teaching skills and patient posting of some great video links for me(really). Funny AH's need to educate -could be a Christian meme.

Wait, wut?