Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?

In mankind's unending pursuit of knowledge there have been many times when religious institutions have found their core tenets put in question by the work of scientists. Galileo faced house arrest for daring to propose that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, a view which has subsequently (though not without great struggle) been accepted by most modern churches. Darwin rattled the fundamentalists' cage even further (and this continues in full force today) with the ToE.Those are only two of the most prominent examples that stand out in my mind, though there are undoubtedly others. The "Absolute Truths" of the Bible (at least in the fundamentalists' view) are irrefutable, and any scientific evidence that might contradict those absolute truths is (in their view) either false, misinterpreted, or in some cases accepted on the grounds that a reinterpretation of the Bible can allow for them (I give you the "Creation Week" as creationists call it).So my question, directed to those of you who consider yourselves religious, is simply this:

Would you like to see scientific enquiry end?

Should we throw away our microscopes and telescopes, and just keep a copy of the Bible on the nightstand for those times when we feel a bit curious? I'll admit that this is a loaded question, but I believe it is nonetheless valid. There appears to be, amongst the religious, the belief that science is out to disprove God, when in fact science has no opinion on the issue of God. Science deals with observations, evidence, experimentation. If the evidence contradicts an ancient religious text, the scientific community does not feel obliged to hide this evidence.In a thread I engaged in recently here, I found the OP (a religious person) to be consistently unimpressed with scientific studies and conclusions, going so far at one point as to suggest that I was the one who was deluded for accepting these things.I'm curious how others (of perhaps less fundamentalist inclination) viewed this issue.Edited by Briterican, : needed the core question to stand out moreEdited by AdminModulous, : closing blockquote and qs tags in the correct order.

I would agree with your proposition that as mankind's knowledge grows, their [religious leaders] grip on the people fails.I would also agree that it is probably a very small minority that would actually argue for the cessation of scientific research.What continues to trouble me is, what do those middle ground folks think? I worry that, although they would not call for an end to scientific research, they would adopt the view that science is not to be trusted, and then pass this view on to all those to whom they are a peer.I wonder how the following question would be answered by our religious contributors: The life of a child is in the balance. Who would you trust more for advice?

​

(a) A trained and respected scientist familiar with illnesses in children.

​

(b) A trained and respected clergyman familiar with illnesses in children.
I think if some of the fence-sitters would be honest with themselves, and delve deeply into their true nature, they would find themselves less and less likely to rely on supernatural solutions over those based on observable reality.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.In my opinion the only way science and religion can complement each other is if your religion is very very very ambiguous, which tends not to be the case with any religion.To simultaneously believe the core tenets of just about any religion, and the evidence of the scientific community.... well it's just indicative of cognitive dissonance.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

slavesque said: I probably didn't put my question/concern clearly enough. I don't believe that's what they want, but I'm curious how they would answer the question. I guess my curiosity comes from the fact that real science is continually being knocked by religious elements, so much so that it is almost in fashion in some parts of the world to talk about scientists as "quacks".

Definitely not nit-picking here, this just reminded me of a passage from A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson:

"... Nor, above all, were his conclusions in any way inspired by his noticing, during his time in the Galapagos Islands, an interesting diversity in the beaks of finches. The story as conventionally told (or, at least, as frequently remembered by many of us) is that Darwin, while travelling from island to island, noticed that each of the finches' beaks were marvellously adapted for exploiting local resources - that on one island beaks were sturdy and short and good for cracking nuts, while on the next island beaks were perhaps long and thin and well suited for winkling food out of crevices - and it was this that set him to thinking that perhaps birds had not been created this way, but had in a sense created themselves.

​

In fact, the birds had created themselves, but it wasn't Darwin who noticed it. At the time of the Beagle voyage, Darwin was fresh out of university and not yet an accomplished naturalist, and so failed to see that the Galapagos birds were all of a type. It was his friend the ornithologist John Gould who realized that what Darwin had found was lots of finches with different talents. Unfortunately, in his inexperience Darwin had not noted which birds came from which islands. (He had made a similar error with tortoises.) It took years to sort the muddles out.

I simply remembered the passage and thought it worth reproducing here.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Ok let's try again to address the original topic...I'd like to see some replies from creationists to the following questions:a) Would you like to see and end to, or a curbing of, scientific enquiry?b) If not, how will you react if evidence comes forward that contradicts statements from your holy text of choice?

S'ok, I'm just happy the thread didn't already die.