Is science incompatible with religion?

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

IMO, fuck yes.

Edit: Why the fuck did I answered no for...? Excuse my ignorance. :x

Edited July 17, 2015 by Formerly Colm

[Snowy_One]

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.

There are many things in life which are not fair regardless of what you believe in. Evolution has dictated that douchey McJockstrap is more likely to reproduce despite being a horrible person barely able to hold a job at a hotdog stand simply because he has genes that make him appeal to women and Kim Kardassian exists as well. But here is the key misconception. You have assumed that, because some of the Bible has changed over the years due to various reasons, the book is now invalid. This is roughly akin to getting a new OS, discovering it doesn't have Minesweeper, and declaring it the worst thing ever. The core message of Jesus, the key to how it all works, comes from the most simple of statements. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Sure, that may be an oversimplification, but it is also the core of Christianity. From that the rest can be built out and understood. Just because you disagree with someone or they outright violently hate you doesn't mean you should spite them back; but rather to turn the other cheek and do your best to treat them well.

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.

The Bible is something created by man through and through, even if it's divinely inspired. But part of being human, part of the whole reason we exist, is because we have free will. That is true no matter how you see it. Animals function according to hormones, actions, a desire to survive, mate, and so-forth. They do not speculate about good and evil, contemplate the size of the universe, and so-forth. It is what makes us human regardless of if you are an atheist, christian, Buddhist, shinto-believer, worship the RNG goddess, or so-forth.

If God were to come down and correct every mistake and flaw like a fairy godmother (why is the fairy godmother a godmother anyways?) we would no longer be human. We would be beings who would be forced into the right and perfect way. We might be perfect, but we would not be human. Part of free will is the ability to choose wrongly, make bad choices, and to seek redemption for them or revel in them.

Imagine if Phoenix had to come up with all of RotE in one go. He would have to make the stat system perfect right off the bat (no patches), he would probably have to write the story entirely by himself to keep other people from potentially mucking it up, and he would have to do it all with little to no outside help. It wouldn't be an RP. It would be a glorified fanfic. Phoenix could have done the latter, but he chose the former to let others play. God could have made everything perfect, but then it would have held no meaning, so he chose the latter so we could be human in the first place.

[Chiki]

There are many things in life which are not fair regardless of what you believe in. Evolution has dictated that douchey McJockstrap is more likely to reproduce despite being a horrible person barely able to hold a job at a hotdog stand simply because he has genes that make him appeal to women and Kim Kardassian exists as well. But here is the key misconception. You have assumed that, because some of the Bible has changed over the years due to various reasons, the book is now invalid. This is roughly akin to getting a new OS, discovering it doesn't have Minesweeper, and declaring it the worst thing ever. The core message of Jesus, the key to how it all works, comes from the most simple of statements. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Sure, that may be an oversimplification, but it is also the core of Christianity. From that the rest can be built out and understood. Just because you disagree with someone or they outright violently hate you doesn't mean you should spite them back; but rather to turn the other cheek and do your best to treat them well.

So.. why doesn't God make things fair so that his followers don't burn in Hell forever because they misunderstood the Bible?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

in the grand scheme of things, what does it mean to be human in the eyes of christianity anyway? you go billions of years having never existed, live for 0-120 yrs or something, and have the rest of time decided for you. anything finite over infinity is 0, so literally your eternal fate is based on nothing, which could have been perfect from the get-go. you say we aren't to be pampered by god, citing that very small number of years in which "being human" matters, but presumably heaven is a place where no problems can exist. and that lasts forever. so what's the point???

Edited July 17, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[-Cynthia-]

The Bible is something created by man through and through, even if it's divinely inspired. But part of being human, part of the whole reason we exist, is because we have free will. That is true no matter how you see it. Animals function according to hormones, actions, a desire to survive, mate, and so-forth. They do not speculate about good and evil, contemplate the size of the universe, and so-forth. It is what makes us human regardless of if you are an atheist, christian, Buddhist, shinto-believer, worship the RNG goddess, or so-forth.

If God were to come down and correct every mistake and flaw like a fairy godmother (why is the fairy godmother a godmother anyways?) we would no longer be human. We would be beings who would be forced into the right and perfect way. We might be perfect, but we would not be human. Part of free will is the ability to choose wrongly, make bad choices, and to seek redemption for them or revel in them.

Imagine if Phoenix had to come up with all of RotE in one go. He would have to make the stat system perfect right off the bat (no patches), he would probably have to write the story entirely by himself to keep other people from potentially mucking it up, and he would have to do it all with little to no outside help. It wouldn't be an RP. It would be a glorified fanfic. Phoenix could have done the latter, but he chose the former to let others play. God could have made everything perfect, but then it would have held no meaning, so he chose the latter so we could be human in the first place.

I don't see how correcting the Bible itself would be removing free will- humans would still have the ability to choose whether to follow the rules set or not. It would just then be the actual word of God rather than the word of God and a number of misinterpretations, additions, deletions etc. It would just actually be clear what was a bad choice.

Personally, I think trying to discount 'parts' of your religious text of choice as untrue due to human error is just an attempt to reconcile a very old book with more modern moral and cultural standards and has little to do with which parts were actually 'divinely inspired' thousands of years ago. I'm not really going to acknowledge your example, as the purpose of a forum RP is entertainment and God's alleged purpose is eternal salvation and such- he's not really benevolent if he's making things unclear for his own amusement.

Edited July 17, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Snowy_One]

So.. why doesn't God make things fair so that his followers don't burn in Hell forever because they misunderstood the Bible?

... *sigh* Let me put it this way.

Gary Gygax is God. Gygax says only D&D players get into heaven. Person 1 comes along and plays D&D and gets in. Yay. Person 2 comes along and scoffs before extolling the virtues of CoD and gets kicked to hell. Person 3 walks along and brings his home-brew version of D&D. Despite not being the perfect D&D it still has the core rules and principles and, therefore, Gygax lets him in. Person 4 comes along and presents FATAL claiming it's like D&D because it uses a D20 system. Gygax sends him to hell. That make a bit more sense?

Just because everything is not perfect does not mean its suddenly unknowable/nonsensical. Imagine if the same rules applied to science. If something couldn't be explained/known perfectly instantly it had to be discarded.

in the grand scheme of things, what does it mean to be human in the eyes of christianity anyway? you go billions of years having never existed, live for 0-120 yrs or something, and have the rest of time decided for you. anything finite over infinity is 0, so literally your eternal fate is based on nothing, which could have been perfect from the get-go. you say we aren't to be pampered by god, citing that very small number of years in which "being human" matters, but presumably heaven is a place where no problems can exist. and that lasts forever. so what's the point???

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

I don't see how correcting the Bible itself would be removing free will- humans would still have the ability to choose whether to follow the rules set or not. It would just then be the actual word of God rather than the word of God and a number of misinterpretations, additions, deletions etc. It would just actually be clear what was a bad choice.

And how would he do that? Come down in a flurry of holy fire that would unconditionally show he was true and make anyone who opted to not believe in everything he said a bumbling moron? Tell some lone soul the truth and ask him to re-pen everything to compete against every other Bible? Neither point makes real sense as one is basically telling someone that they can go anywhere when they are on a tiny island surrounded by lava and the other wouldn't mean much in regards to your argument because it would still be in the hands of man.

Personally, I think trying to discount 'parts' of your religious text of choice as untrue due to human error is just an attempt to reconcile a very old book with more modern moral and cultural standards and has little to do with which parts were actually 'divinely inspired' thousands of years ago.

Erm. Actually it's a factual statement and observation that displays that assuming that the Bible is something that should never be questioned as folly even for those who believe unconditionally in God/Jesus. Similar to how assuming science is always right leads to folly even for those who believe everything has a scientific explanation.

I'm not really going to acknowledge your example, as the purpose of a forum RP is entertainment and God's alleged purpose is eternal salvation and such- he's not really benevolent if he's making things unclear for his own amusement.

Way to miss the point. The point is that, if God were to make things 'perfect', humanity would become a non-entity and a pointless exercise. Why make something with the ability to go against your will and deny you when the only possible outcome is their own folly and being forced back into line? It would be like an RPer doing something that didn't fall completely within the GM's story so he forced the character back in-line and possibly removed the player as well.

[eclipse]

This is all I have time for.

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.

I'd do my research. What does it preach? What do the most vocal people on either side say? What types of people join? How is it viewed in general society? Where are the more extreme/moderate views? How have they evolved? Are their stated values compatible with my own? Or perhaps some other questions that might come to mind when it's not an hour past my bedtime.

Then, I'd talk to the various people within the religion, about their religion. From there, I'd decide whether or not it was worth my time. Outright rejection would be reserved for those religions who hurt others for their own ends, or whose goals/values are polar opposites to my own (anyone who brings up Christianity/Islam can keep it to themselves; I know just enough about both religions to know that it'll take someone who's studied them as a scholarly pursuit to speak for/against them properly). Everything else would be some sort of possibility.

. . .my theoretical search for a religion almost sounds like a science project. . . ;/

also, the writing competition has been updated

[Phoenix Wright]

Gary Gygax is God. Gygax says only D&D players get into heaven. Person 1 comes along and plays D&D and gets in. Yay. Person 2 comes along and scoffs before extolling the virtues of CoD and gets kicked to hell. Person 3 walks along and brings his home-brew version of D&D. Despite not being the perfect D&D it still has the core rules and principles and, therefore, Gygax lets him in. Person 4 comes along and presents FATAL claiming it's like D&D because it uses a D20 system. Gygax sends him to hell. That make a bit more sense?

Just because everything is not perfect does not mean its suddenly unknowable/nonsensical. Imagine if the same rules applied to science. If something couldn't be explained/known perfectly instantly it had to be discarded.

why not let anyone who wants to play games into heaven? there's no point in such specific criteria. it seems needlessly cruel.

well, science doesn't proclaim to have the power to solve problems instantly and perfectly in the first place...

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

it wasn't really a question. i'm asserting that life has no point whatsoever in the christian religion.

we go billions of years of not being relevant to creation, live for a time, and that decides our existence for the rest of eternity? the blip in time in which we actually live is so small. there's no point in having free will for 0-120 years (however long one's individual lifetime may be) then not having it for eternity. it's like you never had it.

but all of that's irrelevant anyway. you have failed to respond to my previous post, which is fine, but i'd at least like to keep the subject going. after all of this, how do you feel about the incompatibility of science and religion? unchanged? do you still view science as a religion?

This is all I have time for.

I'd do my research. What does it preach? What do the most vocal people on either side say? What types of people join? How is it viewed in general society? Where are the more extreme/moderate views? How have they evolved? Are their stated values compatible with my own? Or perhaps some other questions that might come to mind when it's not an hour past my bedtime.

Then, I'd talk to the various people within the religion, about their religion. From there, I'd decide whether or not it was worth my time. Outright rejection would be reserved for those religions who hurt others for their own ends, or whose goals/values are polar opposites to my own (anyone who brings up Christianity/Islam can keep it to themselves; I know just enough about both religions to know that it'll take someone who's studied them as a scholarly pursuit to speak for/against them properly). Everything else would be some sort of possibility.

. . .my theoretical search for a religion almost sounds like a science project. . . ;/

also, the writing competition has been updated

well, sort of. ultimately, the answer would be how you feel about it, when this is meant to never be the case in science. but, i suppose there exists a methodical approach to the problem haha.

i'm assuming by, "hurt others for their own ends," you mean the religion as a whole? i would disagree that it would take a theologian otherwise...

sounds like a cool prompt! i didn't know that topic existed before--i might have to check it out some time!

[-Cynthia-]

And how would he do that? Come down in a flurry of holy fire that would unconditionally show he was true and make anyone who opted to not believe in everything he said a bumbling moron? Tell some lone soul the truth and ask him to re-pen everything to compete against every other Bible? Neither point makes real sense as one is basically telling someone that they can go anywhere when they are on a tiny island surrounded by lava and the other wouldn't mean much in regards to your argument because it would still be in the hands of man.

What's God's supposed goal anyway? If he wants people to follow the rules to make things better on Earth and so everyone can live happily forever in heaven, then being clear would be logical. If he wants devotion from all humans, I argue that God being omnibenevolent makes no sense- he's an all powerful being regardless of whether he's believed in or not. Eternally torturing people over something as petty as not having faith in him or his kid is pretty awful by just about any moral standards.

Erm. Actually it's a factual statement and observation that displays that assuming that the Bible is something that should never be questioned as folly even for those who believe unconditionally in God/Jesus. Similar to how assuming science is always right leads to folly even for those who believe everything has a scientific explanation.

Thinking that some parts of the Bible are the word of God and some parts are not is an opinion, not a factual statement.

Way to miss the point. The point is that, if God were to make things 'perfect', humanity would become a non-entity and a pointless exercise. Why make something with the ability to go against your will and deny you when the only possible outcome is their own folly and being forced back into line? It would be like an RPer doing something that didn't fall completely within the GM's story so he forced the character back in-line and possibly removed the player as well.

Why would the rules of the Bible being clear make humanity pointless? Are you claiming that the purpose of humanity is to discern which passages are true and which are not from a book that is several thousand years old? You're arguing against a strawman of God forcing people to act against their will, not having a set of rules that is clearly defined.

[eclipse]

i'm assuming by, "hurt others for their own ends," you mean the religion as a whole? i would disagree that it would take a theologian otherwise...

In older times, it would be something that required human sacrifice. In modern times, it would be religions that require tithes/other money (instead of tithes being voluntary), those that ostracize members who receive certain types of medical aid (because I refuse to outright reject scientific advancement in the name of religion), the handful of religions that still practice live animal sacrifices, etc.

[Autumn]

Yes, science and religion is ideologically incompatible.

There are many different arguments about what is science, I'll be going by Karl Popper's science because that is what the modern scientific method is based upon.

Popper argued that the central property of science is falsifiability. That is, every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. - Wikipedia

God is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific claim. According to science, you cannot claim it, because it cannot be proven to be false.

Pragmatically though, you certainly can be both religious and be a scientist at the same time. The world isn't that anal about it.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Autumn

[Rapier]

True, it isn't compatible. I made the mistake of thinking that because religious/spiritual people can be scientists (which has already been proven true) it meant religion wasn't incompatible with science. That was a faulty conclusion because one may lack a 100% scientific mind. Our brain has enough space for subjective (faith, beliefs) and objective (reason, experience) stuff in such a way that one does not overlap or erradicate the other. Thus it is possible for scientists to be spiritual/religious.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Autumn]

True, it isn't compatible. I made the mistake of thinking that because religious/spiritual people can be scientists (which has already been proven true) it meant religion wasn't incompatible with science. That was a faulty conclusion because one may lack a 100% scientific mind. Our brain has enough space for subjective (faith, beliefs) and objective (reason, experience) stuff in such a way that one does not overlap or erradicate the other. Thus it is possible for scientists to be spiritual/religious.

Well you actually have to employ doublethink to be both a scientist and religious at the same time. xD So it does in fact overlap and eradicate each other. A scientist is by definition agnostic or atheistic.

But sometimes it's actually practical to be both, and since it's practical I don't see why this can't be an exception to not being a contradictory person- It's helpful!

[dondon151]

Well you actually have to employ doublethink to be both a scientist and religious at the same time. xD So it does in fact overlap and eradicate each other. A scientist is by definition agnostic or atheistic.

rapier's point is that people likely compartmentalize faith and rational thinking so that they can coexist despite being contradictory.

a scientist is typically an expert at a very narrow range of subjects. outside of those subjects they can hold incorrect beliefs based on misunderstanding.

[Autumn]

rapier's point is that people likely compartmentalize faith and rational thinking so that they can coexist despite being contradictory.

a scientist is typically an expert at a very narrow range of subjects. outside of those subjects they can hold incorrect beliefs based on misunderstanding.

Yeah doublethink.

Yes, like scientists that don't understand fundamental philosophy of science, and just follows the rules in the textbook. But ignorance can be used to excuse anything, it's not too interesting to debate in that context.

[Rapier]

rapier's point is that people likely compartmentalize faith and rational thinking so that they can coexist despite being contradictory.

a scientist is typically an expert at a very narrow range of subjects. outside of those subjects they can hold incorrect beliefs based on misunderstanding.

That's partly it. My point is that everyone has a part of their mind for objective and subjective things, and that we're not 100% rational.

I'm willing to bet my [unexistant] fortune that even the most scientificist person (ie. someone that vehemently believes science is capable of providing perfectly valid and factually correct answers to every question through the scientific method) has, to some degree, faith (not necessarily in G/gods). The most basic way to prove this is to ask if they think they'll be alive next week or, taking it to a more philosophical approach, if the Sun will rise in the east next week. What would both of you answer?

I think people believe they will be alive and the Sun will still rise in the east next week (ok, I'm begging the question and taking a long logic leap, I admit I can't do better). Our minds are led to irrationally believe our routine (and the environment around us) will not change despite there being no evidence that it won't. A lot of things can happen in one week but we ignore it and stick to our faith that our routine will remain the same.

A scientist is by definition agnostic or atheistic.

The man who you cited said (paraphrased, since I've read in my mother language) "science at first leads to atheism, but it ultimately leads to God", so your affirmation is false. It's not very uncommon for scientists to be christians or adhere to other religions. In fact, many classic figures of science who helped with the creation of the scientific method and modern science were religious/spiritual. Some of them saw (and some still see) science as a way to "know God's creations".

As I argued, people have enough space for subjective and objective stuff.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Rapier

[Autumn]

That's partly it. My point is that everyone has a part of their mind for objective and subjective things, and that we're not 100% rational.

I'm willing to bet my [unexistant] fortune that even the most scientificist person (ie. someone that vehemently believes science is capable of providing perfectly valid and factually correct answers to every question through the scientific method) has, to some degree, faith (not necessarily in G/gods). The most basic way to prove this is to ask if they think they'll be alive next week or, taking it to a more philosophical approach, if the Sun will rise in the east next week. What would both of you answer?

"Probably". Because statistics, not faith. I have woken up alive day after day for the past 18 years with the sun rising in the east. I am pretty sure it's going to continue doing so.

And the only thing that might make the sun rise in a different direction is if a huge comet smashed earth off orbit. Which has happened once in Earth's HISTORY, when it was hit with a mars sized rock. That is statistically very, very rare. Our existance is indeed a flimsy one, but history shows that it is highly unlikely that the sun won't rise in the east tomorrow morning, and that's the conclusion I have come to- "probably".

"science at first leads to atheism, but it ultimately leads to God", so your affirmation is false.

Context please. Also just because someone is right about one thing, doesn't mean they're right about everything. The modern scientific method does not lead to "God". I'd be impressed if you informed me of one train of logic that indicates it does. Because from the modern scientific method of "your claim needs to be falsifiable" the definition of a scientist is, indeed, atheistic (due to the sheer lack of evidence and contradictions in the bible) or agnostic (because god /could/ exist, there is no evidence for it, so the agnostic cannot make a judgement).

As I argued, people have enough space for subjective and objective stuff.

Yes, it's called doublethink. Beneficial doublethink but doublethink all the same.

[Phoenix Wright]

That's partly it. My point is that everyone has a part of their mind for objective and subjective things, and that we're not 100% rational.

I'm willing to bet my [unexistant] fortune that even the most scientificist person (ie. someone that vehemently believes science is capable of providing perfectly valid and factually correct answers to every question through the scientific method) has, to some degree, faith (not necessarily in G/gods). The most basic way to prove this is to ask if they think they'll be alive next week or, taking it to a more philosophical approach, if the Sun will rise in the east next week. What would both of you answer?

I think people believe they will be alive and the Sun will still rise in the east next week (ok, I'm begging the question and taking a long logic leap, I admit I can't do better). Our minds are led to irrationally believe our routine (and the environment around us) will not change despite there being no evidence that it won't. A lot of things can happen in one week but we ignore it and stick to our faith that our routine will remain the same.

lol. so have you recently read about hume or something?

it's not a leap of faith to believe i'll be alive tomorrow, or in the next ten minutes, or next second, because (although i'm currently sick) i'm a healthy young person. healthy young people have established that they don't simply perish at the drop of a time. moreover this is assuming that a scientist disregards the (probably accepted) possibility of death in the first place, so it's not 100% certainty, and it's not certainty without evidence.

maybe there's a problem with induction alone, but we've got good reason to believe the sun will rise in the east for billions of years to come, if not even looking at the actual physics of the situation (orbits, mainly), but simply by looking at the geometry of the problem. science is about making predictions; if we can't predict that the sun will rise, or that i'll likely be alive next week, then the work that went into making those predictions are worthless.

it's like saying we can't know the speed of light in a vacuum at any given moment in time. it's, by accounts of physical discovery and theory, inaccurate to even feel that about science. (ie, that would stem from a poor understanding of the science in the first place.)

Edited November 6, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

Well you actually have to employ doublethink to be both a scientist and religious at the same time. xD So it does in fact overlap and eradicate each other. A scientist is by definition agnostic or atheistic.

But sometimes it's actually practical to be both, and since it's practical I don't see why this can't be an exception to not being a contradictory person- It's helpful!

That is not necessarily true. You can yet be an agnostic theist, or have a sense of spirituality while acknowledging its lack of evidence. There is no double-think involved. Science is a process, not a mode of thought, and thus it is not contradictory to separate the world they are associated with, with that which they are not.

[Radiant head]

Science for me is just a reaffirmation of how absurd everything is. The world feels infinitely absurd and unknowable, and science just sort of puts layers between our perception and our infinitely absurd reality. It's like comfort food.

[Phoenix Wright]

that makes little sense to me as it's written now, could you explain a little more?

[Autumn]

Science for me is just a reaffirmation of how absurd everything is. The world feels infinitely absurd and unknowable, and science just sort of puts layers between our perception and our infinitely absurd reality. It's like comfort food.

idk about you, man. But most of it makes sense to me. xD

[Radiant head]

that makes little sense to me as it's written now, could you explain a little more?

Basically, most scientific explanations, like about thunder storms, gives us some remote understanding of phenomena we used to attribute to gods. But for me, most scientific explanations feel so crazy and ridiculous as unscientific explanations. To be clear I'm very much pro-science, it's just on a philosophical level, science just kind of makes me go "wtf" a lot of the time because the whole world feels as absurd as before I heard the scientific explanation. You might be able to explain that lightning and thunder aren't caused by gods, but I'm still wondering what electricity even is on a fundamental level.

So basically science isn't some linear exploration, it's just mostly shifting paradigms and putting layers between our senses and the absurdity of it all.

Oh I just realized this thread is a necro. Will probably get locked then.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Radiant head

[Makaze]

Basically, most scientific explanations, like about thunder storms, gives us some remote understanding of phenomena we used to attribute to gods. But for me, most scientific explanations feel so crazy and ridiculous as unscientific explanations. Don't mean to sound anti-science, just the opposite, it's just on a philosophical level, science just kind of makes me go "wtf" a lot of the time because the whole world feels as absurd as before I heard the scientific explanation. You might be able to explain that lightning and thunder aren't caused by gods, but I'm still wondering what electricity even is on a fundamental level.

So basically science isn't some linear exploration, it's just mostly shifting paradigms and putting layers between our senses and the absurdity of it all.

Oh I just realized this thread is a necro. Will probably get locked then.

I think that is a misinterpretation of science's purpose. Applying scientific thinking to thunder storms allows us to use thunder storms to achieve specific ends where applying superstitious thinking did not. Whether it is true or not may be an absurd question, but whether it is useful or not is a rational one.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Makaze

[Radiant head]

The practical use of science is undeniable, but really has nothing to do with my point.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Radiant head