Is science incompatible with religion?

[Fly or Die]

If murder, rape, theft, flying a plane into a kindergarten etc. are to be considered morally right, society would be driven into chaos. Those are behaviors that are detrimental to the continuinity and well being of society overall, so they MUST be disencouraged and prevented. This is why ethics need to be objective, at least to a certain point (because defining more advanced ethics is hard). If we can't determine (at least the most basic behaviors, like the ones stated before) as right or wrong, we're done for.

I don't wish to go into a objective vs subjective moralality debate (that's a 2000 year old monster), but your quote seems to imply that morality exists solely to enforce societal order. That contradicts your stated belief that morals are objective (how can morality be objective if its existence in its present form relies solely upon how society ended up today?)

Regardless, even if you believe relevant moral dilemmas are 90% subjective and 10% objective (and I would say that it's much more subjective than 90%, given that for any given scenario I can guarantee the existence of a variation in which there are two easily arguable sides), that would make morality subjective overall, which brings me back to my original point: science, which is ideally 100% objective, cannot be used to create subjective moral rules.

In fact, how would you even possibly use "science" to find a solution to questions like "is abortion morally acceptable?" As long as there is something science cannot do and religion can, there's a need for religion.

(Trying to get the discussion somewhat back to the original topic here.)

[Phoenix Wright]

In fact, how would you even possibly use "science" to find a solution to questions like "is abortion morally acceptable?" As long as there is something science cannot do and religion can, there's a need for religion.

(Trying to get the discussion somewhat back to the original topic here.)

religion doesn't do anything for the masses.

[dondon151]

When I talk about religious ethics, I'm referring to ethical guidlines generally, not specific examples of commands in the Old Testament (for that matter, I never even referenced Christianity specifically).

what's the difference

if the bible says so, is it not a guideline

Your "secular ethical standards" are mostly derived historically from religious ethical beliefs.

what about gender equality, abolitionism, and acceptance of others is derived from religious ethical beliefs

aren't women treated inferior to men in the bible (in addition to the quote from 1 timothy, the tenth commandment is a proscription against coveting a neighbor's wife but ignores the converse)

did god not only permit slavery, but also encouraged it and expressed how it should be enforced

did god not permit genocides of his not-chosen people, and does the bible not describe in gruesome detail the outcome of one's rejection of god

In fact, how would you even possibly use "science" to find a solution to questions like "is abortion morally acceptable?" As long as there is something science cannot do and religion can, there's a need for religion.

one can measure metrics associated with average quality of life in societies where abortion is prohibited (hint: it's typically lower). one can measure unintended outcomes of a proscription on abortion (hint: women get abortions anyway and use riskier, more expensive, and more life-threatening procedures).

it's so easy in theory to determine answers to ethical questions such as this. in practice it's a bit more difficult because actually performing an experiment is impossible and natural experiments have confounding factors.

(I personally consider it murder since not even the most convinced abortion supporters would want to be in the aborted baby's place)?

i would.

most people don't seem to really understand the question. now that you exist and have a body of experience associated with your life, of course you would want to exist. but if you never existed, then you don't care at all about existing. i would have no complaints about never having existed because i would have to have existed in the first place in order to complain about it.

Edited July 16, 2015 by dondon151

[eclipse]

I have a lot less dishes, so I can do it this way.

i realize this, but the purpose of those experiments include conveying the complexity of the problem, not just showing how cool science can look. they're meant to make an already curious mind more curious. showing that ketchup is a non-newtonian fluid is cool, but simply showcasing science isn't useful if the audence doesn't attempt to learn more. the message, "this is how cool science is, now you go do it," is what's intended. in other words, the attempt at making people care about the details is the actual goal. you say:

which is correct. this is due to our failure in accomplishing the goal. most people understand that vaccines are (largely) a good thing, but very few can explain why they're good. so when "new information" comes around saying they're actually bad and cause your kids to catch autism, well then that's just the way it is, ain't it?! we knew one thing now we know another.

I had to do a research project in high school about medieval times. My subject was smallpox. After seeing just how bad that was, I decided that something as simple as a vaccine was a must for any kids of mine. What boggles my mind is how many parents refuse to vaccinate their kids, and use a religious exemption to get around that requirement.

Still, it's really hard to make someone care about something unless they want to care about it. . .so perhaps that should be one of the goals of science in school? That way, there'll be more adults who can disregard those experiments that are pushing an obvious agenda.

attempting to understand things we can't measure and observe is fruitless. what is the basis for any answer given. why trust one source over another?

Fruitless to you. But not to me.

i'm not so sure that faith should actually be important when making decisions on what one should accept as fact...

Can you provide an example of what you mean?

the topic's not that long. there's no point in posting if the (same!) question's already been asked and answered well enough to merit no further posts about it.

Feel free to shrug and move on.

i'm only talking about scientific discoveries. like, if we found out that the universe is beginning to slow down in its acceleration, this would cause cosmologists to be very confused on the nature of the dark energy--something that's already mysterious.

THAT sounds cool.

What I don't want is nonsense like "men are shown to be unable to control themselves around women after imbibing a certain amount of alcohol", or something equally harmful.

[Phoenix Wright]

I had to do a research project in high school about medieval times. My subject was smallpox. After seeing just how bad that was, I decided that something as simple as a vaccine was a must for any kids of mine. What boggles my mind is how many parents refuse to vaccinate their kids, and use a religious exemption to get around that requirement.

Still, it's really hard to make someone care about something unless they want to care about it. . .so perhaps that should be one of the goals of science in school? That way, there'll be more adults who can disregard those experiments that are pushing an obvious agenda.

that's cool! :)

the motto is, "at least they'll know better." i'm not trying to suggest people should know everything about everything, amazing as that would be, but it's fair to expect people to be able to critically think and make decisions with a far more powerful toolset than before a proper science education (so yes, around the world it should be a priority). i think it's fair to expect people to be able to think for themselves via a proper education (ie, "know better") and to "care enough" to investigate when a BREAKING STUDY is actually just bullshit. this is something almost all humans are capable of.

Fruitless to you. But not to me.

how do you discern one source is more trustworthy than another? let us suppose either that you are an atheist in this hypothetical, or that at least the idea of the christian god never came to be. you're a clean slate--how do you know what's correct?

Can you provide an example of what you mean?

it's just another way of asking what i've asked above.

Feel free to shrug and move on.

it's clear i'm making this a bigger deal than it needs to be, but we'll agree to disagree i suppose.

What I don't want is nonsense like "men are shown to be unable to control themselves around women after imbibing a certain amount of alcohol", or something equally harmful.

if something like this were actually true, it would warrant new legislation, so there's probably not much to worry about haha.

[eclipse]

how do you discern one source is more trustworthy than another? let us suppose either that you are an atheist in this hypothetical, or that at least the idea of the christian god never came to be. you're a clean slate--how do you know what's correct?

Science should have published material, so I can cross-reference it to what I'm investigating. If I can't find a satisfactory answer, I attempt to derive my own answer based off of whatever I researched. If I can't come up with a rational explanation, then it gets filed under "things that I can't explain".

[Phoenix Wright]

Science should have published material, so I can cross-reference it to what I'm investigating. If I can't find a satisfactory answer, I attempt to derive my own answer based off of whatever I researched. If I can't come up with a rational explanation, then it gets filed under "things that I can't explain".

this isn't really a satisfactory answer. let me repost what you said earlier, because i don't think you're responding to the statements my questions originally came from:

I see science for things we can observe and measure, and religion for those things we can't (or haven't figured out yet).

Lastly, I agree with "no scientific basis to believe in religion". However, I don't have enough faith in humanity and science to discount religion, which is why I'm willing to accept both science and religion, even if they are incompatible by definition.

let me ask again, then,

assuming the religion you currently identify with does not exist in this hypothetical, how do you know which religion to accept, if any at all? what's more trustworthy and why? this is an open question to all religious folk as well to perhaps help those try and understand the topic a little better.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

I don't wish to go into a objective vs subjective moralality debate (that's a 2000 year old monster), but your quote seems to imply that morality exists solely to enforce societal order. That contradicts your stated belief that morals are objective (how can morality be objective if its existence in its present form relies solely upon how society ended up today?)

Regardless, even if you believe relevant moral dilemmas are 90% subjective and 10% objective and I would say that it's much more subjective than 90%, given that for any given scenario I can guarantee the existence of a variation in which there are two easily arguable sides), that would make morality subjective overall, which brings me back to my original point: science, which is ideally 100% objective, cannot be used to create subjective moral rules.

In fact, how would you even possibly use "science" to find a solution to questions like "is abortion morally acceptable?" As long as there is something science cannot do and religion can, there's a need for religion.

(Trying to get the discussion somewhat back to the original topic here.)

Ethics is either completely subjective or completely objective, there's no middle ground.

Bolded part: Variations aren't valid since you're not considering the same scenario. It doesn't change the fact that I've proven that there uncontroversial cases, so I win.

Also, it's poor manners to ignore the quote from the New Testament I posted and keep repeating that there's a need for religion. The use of the Bible prevents us from giving women equal rights, giving animals rights, and so on.

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Mark

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10

Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

These quotes make Jesus look pretty evil.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

Are you sure this isn't your personal interpretation? Of course, I don't have the WHOLE Bible memorized, but Jesus blatantly admitting he WANTS people to go to hell and doing so ON PURPOSE, this simply isn't the case even though I too would have preferred him to speak more often directly and less in parables.

Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

To be honest, this one has bothered me forever either. However, the priest in the church I am going to says that in a certain sense "animals are more sacred/innocent than ourselves" (at least how I manage to translate it from Italian). Many Christians I know hope our beloved pets will be with us in the after-life.

For the rest of the quotes, if they are to be interpreted literally, this does indeed create unpleasant reflections for religious people. However, I think that the "cutting the feet off", "burning" forever in hell etc are still allegorical things, it would be too primitive for a supreme being like God to use real-life fire and literally "fry" the sinners. I don't believe Jesus really meant an eye or an arm could literally tempt a person to commit a sin, they are just part of bodies. One person can tempt another, but an arm or an eye? I know it's too convenient to say everytime "it's an allegory", but in this case I am pretty sure, since it would be too primitive for a supreme being like God to literally do such things.

By the way, even though it's kind of off-topic, anybody here has read the short story "The Great Divorce" by Clive Staples Lewis about his imaginary representation of hell and paradise? I know it's not from the Bible, but if hopefully the "fire and tortures" in hell for the sinners are an allegory, then I prefer very much this kind of vision of the Christian after-life. I mean, people in hell suffering morally only because of their own unwillingness to become good-hearted and less cynical and ready to blame others for everything, and perceiving the Paradise as something useless and boring, therefore simply not understanding it, not wanting to be there, being out of place in a place of supreme good.

P.S. The last paragraph of my post isn't really meant as an argument to prove a point, just a mere curiosity.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[dondon151]

i don't understand how the allegory defense even holds up

suppose that i made a death threat to you over the internet. that is a crime; i can't weasel out of that one by claiming that it's allegorical. "oh, when i said that i was going to murder you in a hospital, i really meant that figuratively, not literally." god makes death threats and it seems perfectly okay.

it's hardly any different to me than stating, for example, that jesus was just kidding about god's punishments for unbelievers.

Edited July 16, 2015 by dondon151

[Dwalin2010]

i don't understand how the allegory defense even holds up

suppose that i made a death threat to you over the internet. that is a crime; i can't weasel out of that one by claiming that it's allegorical. "oh, when i said that i was going to murder you in a hospital, i really meant that figuratively, not literally." god makes death threats and it seems perfectly okay.

it's hardly any different to me than stating, for example, that jesus was just kidding about god's punishments for unbelievers.

It sounds cynical on my part, but maybe people back then just understood it better this way? Those were cruel pre-medieval times, people were less merciful, even the Old Testament with all its ferocity theoretically seems an improvement compared to the Stone Age for example (at least it brought SOME rules).

[dondon151]

i don't buy that defense either. if god is omnipotent, why does he have to tailor his doctrine to suit the stone age culture? furthermore, codes of law existed prior to the time of the old testament, so it wouldn't even be accurate to say that the old testament was an improvement in ethics even in the context of setting.

let's not forget that according to the bible, god was so dissatisfied with his creation that he wiped them out in a flood and started anew. he played a part in creating a culture from scratch that was still barbaric.

[Chiki]

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’a ”

Jesus says here that God speaks in parables so that people who don't have the secret of the kingdom of God can never understand or perceive his stories, so that they end up going to Hell. It's very obvious what it means, it's not open to interpretation.

However, I think that the "cutting the feet off", "burning" forever in hell etc are still allegorical things, it would be too primitive for a supreme being like God to use real-life fire and literally "fry" the sinners.

Ha ha. This is really funny because it shows how much more advanced modern morality is compared to medieval morality and religion. You're more moral than the God of the New Testament. They aren't allegorical at all, it really means that sinners are going to burn forever in Hell.

When I watch religious programs (both Islam and Christianity), they often talk about people burning forever in Hell. So this is quite literal and not a joke at all. What would be the point of a metaphorical reading? What else could it mean? Nothing.

As one of my professors put it, the Bible is good for those who have the morality of a toddler. You're better than that and can see the flaws with the morality that religion gives us.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

i don't buy that defense either. if god is omnipotent, why does he have to tailor his doctrine to suit the stone age culture? furthermore, codes of law existed prior to the time of the old testament, so it wouldn't even be accurate to say that the old testament was an improvement in ethics even in the context of setting.

let's not forget that according to the bible, god was so dissatisfied with his creation that he wiped them out in a flood and started anew. he played a part in creating a culture from scratch that was still barbaric.

Those are good questions. However, maybe be Old Testament was initially meant for one culture only (the Jews), the improved codes of law that already existed before that were in other cultures (Egyptians, Hittites etc). Why suit the Stone Age? Maybe because he wanted to keep his intervention to the minimum, didn't want to "magically" radically change everything. I don't know. However, I would like to hear the answers to these questions myself, you make interesting points.

When I watch religious programs (both Islam and Christianity), they often talk about people burning forever in Hell.

And that's sad. Such people ruin religion when it could be an instrument of morality and hope. To be honest, I maintain my religious beliefs partially because I try to take example from the Christians I personally know, who are almost all honest, welcoming, friendly and helpful people.

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’a ”

Maybe it's because of the "so that" phrase? In the Russian translation I read it's not "so that" they won't be forgiven or that "this is the objective". It's worded differently, but in no way it means that he wants to cheat the people in going to hell. Wait a minute, I will try to translate.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

And that's sad. Such people ruin religion when it could be an instrument of morality and hope. To be honest, I maintain my religious beliefs partially because I try to take example from the Christians I personally know, who are almost all honest, welcoming, friendly and helpful people.

Are they ruining religion, or are they just portraying its true nature?

You're trying too hard to assign a metaphorical reading to everything in the Bible you don't agree with. That's what we call "cherrypicking." It's a horrible way out of the bad quotes of the New Testament, since the burden of proof is on you to show that there are metaphorical readings of "burning forever in Hell." There aren't any.

[Dwalin2010]

Are they ruining religion, or are they just portraying its true nature?

You're trying too hard to assign a metaphorical reading to everything in the Bible you don't agree with. That's what we call "cherrypicking." It's a horrible way out of the bad quotes of the New Testament, since the burden of proof is on you to show that there are metaphorical readings of "burning forever in Hell." There aren't any.

I don't know for sure, nobody can KNOW 100%. But the religious people I personally know give a good example in my opinion. If they interpret religion in a certain way and that makes them better, who we are to say religion is bad by default? If a person doesn't harm anybody and does quite the opposite and religion plays a role in it, I see no point in renouncing religion for that person. Everybody has their own way to become a moral person.

[Chiki]

I don't know for sure, nobody can KNOW 100%. But the religious people I personally know give a good example in my opinion. If they interpret religion in a certain way and that makes them better, who we are to say religion is bad by default? If a person doesn't harm anybody and does quite the opposite and religion plays a role in it, I see no point in renouncing religion for that person. Everybody has their own way to become a moral person.

If the Bible is so hard to interpret, that just makes it a poorly written book. How can a poorly written book be the word of God? God can't make any mistakes, by definition.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

It sounds cynical on my part, but maybe people back then just understood it better this way? Those were cruel pre-medieval times, people were less merciful, even the Old Testament with all its ferocity theoretically seems an improvement compared to the Stone Age for example (at least it brought SOME rules).

isn't this an example of god being unfair? like, how come only some people get to know the secret and actually get to know for certain that god exists, but the rest of us have to have faith?

[Dwalin2010]

Well, to everybody: the points you make are good, I don't really have much to say anymore, except that faith vs logic is indeed a tricky thing to make a choice in terms of "which one is better" or "trying to make them compatible". Therefore I think it's better if I just agree to disagree and respect your point of view, even still maintaining my personal beliefs.

[Snowy_One]

If the Bible is so hard to interpret, that just makes it a poorly written book. How can a poorly written book be the word of God? God can't make any mistakes, by definition.

Except that's not really the case. Sort of...

Firstly the Bible has been handed down for several thousands of years. At the least ~2,000 or so if one only considers the New Testament. Now, I'm not going to claim that the Jewish scholars failed to scribe down God's word perfectly, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt here, but there are many OTHER people whom have written the Bible in said time between Jesus's time on Earth and now; not all of whom were exactly perfect scribes. So you have copy degradation (you know, how if you copy something, then make a copy using the new copy, and so-on, eventually the copy has completely degraded), the fact that the Bible has been translated multiple times now, and cultural interpretations added in. Then you have the fact that the Bible was NOT compiled by God but, rather, by man. There are several books in the Bible that, while key to Christianity, are distinctly not God's word (EX: Psalms. A literal songbook). Once again, giving the benefit of the doubt here, the people who compiled the Bible from the various records, accounts, and letters probably did their best to keep it true to the word of God, but that's not the same as being 100% accurate. In fact the reason that there are four separate gospels is that all four focused on different events and viewpoints even if they were describing the same person and happenings.

So between the time, translations, additions/omissions, and the general fallibility of man the Bible isn't exactly the most consistent thing around. I still believe it to be true; just... taken with the grain of salt that it was God who dictated but man who wrote it.

Another way to phrase it in more... FE... terms would be imagine someone making a tier list and getting it 100% accurate and even 80% of the arguments fairly right, but there is still that 20% that's different. It's different, changed a bit, but still true through and through.

[Chiki]

Except that's not really the case. Sort of...

Firstly the Bible has been handed down for several thousands of years. At the least ~2,000 or so if one only considers the New Testament. Now, I'm not going to claim that the Jewish scholars failed to scribe down God's word perfectly, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt here, but there are many OTHER people whom have written the Bible in said time between Jesus's time on Earth and now; not all of whom were exactly perfect scribes. So you have copy degradation (you know, how if you copy something, then make a copy using the new copy, and so-on, eventually the copy has completely degraded), the fact that the Bible has been translated multiple times now, and cultural interpretations added in. Then you have the fact that the Bible was NOT compiled by God but, rather, by man. There are several books in the Bible that, while key to Christianity, are distinctly not God's word (EX: Psalms. A literal songbook). Once again, giving the benefit of the doubt here, the people who compiled the Bible from the various records, accounts, and letters probably did their best to keep it true to the word of God, but that's not the same as being 100% accurate. In fact the reason that there are four separate gospels is that all four focused on different events and viewpoints even if they were describing the same person and happenings.

So between the time, translations, additions/omissions, and the general fallibility of man the Bible isn't exactly the most consistent thing around. I still believe it to be true; just... taken with the grain of salt that it was God who dictated but man who wrote it.

Another way to phrase it in more... FE... terms would be imagine someone making a tier list and getting it 100% accurate and even 80% of the arguments fairly right, but there is still that 20% that's different. It's different, changed a bit, but still true through and through.

Then why doesn't God just snap his fingers and fix it by making it much more clear? It's not fair for Christians to suffer because of people's mistakes 2000 years ago, who are long dead.

[-Cynthia-]

Except that's not really the case. Sort of...

Firstly the Bible has been handed down for several thousands of years. At the least ~2,000 or so if one only considers the New Testament. Now, I'm not going to claim that the Jewish scholars failed to scribe down God's word perfectly, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt here, but there are many OTHER people whom have written the Bible in said time between Jesus's time on Earth and now; not all of whom were exactly perfect scribes. So you have copy degradation (you know, how if you copy something, then make a copy using the new copy, and so-on, eventually the copy has completely degraded), the fact that the Bible has been translated multiple times now, and cultural interpretations added in. Then you have the fact that the Bible was NOT compiled by God but, rather, by man. There are several books in the Bible that, while key to Christianity, are distinctly not God's word (EX: Psalms. A literal songbook). Once again, giving the benefit of the doubt here, the people who compiled the Bible from the various records, accounts, and letters probably did their best to keep it true to the word of God, but that's not the same as being 100% accurate. In fact the reason that there are four separate gospels is that all four focused on different events and viewpoints even if they were describing the same person and happenings.

So between the time, translations, additions/omissions, and the general fallibility of man the Bible isn't exactly the most consistent thing around. I still believe it to be true; just... taken with the grain of salt that it was God who dictated but man who wrote it.

Another way to phrase it in more... FE... terms would be imagine someone making a tier list and getting it 100% accurate and even 80% of the arguments fairly right, but there is still that 20% that's different. It's different, changed a bit, but still true through and through.

If the creation of the Bible is fallible in that it does not accurately represent the word of God(which God would know being omniscient supposedly), why does God allow this to happen? Being all-powerful and able to create entire forms of life, one would think he could correct some errors in a book. Does he want to confuse people so they accidentally end up in hell? As far as I know, the Bible(or Old Testament) never explain why God doesn't do things directly.

[dondon151]

As far as I know, the Bible(or Old Testament) never explain why God doesn't do things directly.

i mean, aside from him working in mysterious ways, which always serve to benefit the party defending him.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

My world view is this: I'm a straight-up atheist who don't give a crap about religious beliefs whatsoever. Do I care about what others believe in? No, as a matter of fact you're entitled to your believe. However, if someone were to criticize my view of life - thats where I'd cross the line. And at the end of the day, I don't expect anyone to comprehend how I think of the world. I've seen enough science vs. religion debates outside of this forum, simply by googling it.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Formerly Colm

[Phoenix Wright]

My world view is this: I'm a straight-up atheist who don't give a crap about religious beliefs whatsoever. Do I care about what others believe in? No, as a matter of fact you're entitled to your believe. However, if someone were to criticize my view of life - thats where I'd cross the line. And at the end of the day, I don't expect anyone to comprehend how I think of the world. I've seen enough science vs. religion debates outside of this forum, simply by googling it.

so...um...do you think the two are incompatible?