Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

Hello SIH, first interaction between us, so welcome to the debate (at least with me). As someone else who left, as jar would call it, a Christian Cult of Ignorance (Catholics) I am someone who shares your appreciation of what science can actually teach us.However, the dichotomy that you have created, in essence, does not exist. As I was a Catholic there were many instances, including the divinity of Jesus, that I was willing to waver on should the evidence show me otherwise. This did not remove the fact that I listened to the teachings of Jesus (love one another, feed those in need, etc...) and could rightly still be called a Christian as the New Testament was where this information was derived from. No need for the divine, but rather a very motivational, compassionate leader in written history. I was still living by Christian teachings, but was willing to adjust my knowledge, similar to what science requires of me when new discoveries are made.Another aspect that you miss in your attempted refutation of the purpose of religion is the metaphysical. If an individual states they unequivocally believe in a (non-interventionist) God, based in a metaphysical realm, how would science have anything to say to destroy this person's faith. They place their deity within a realm that is untouchable by science, since science, by definition, can only study the natural/physical world. Objects thought/believed to be operating outside of this natural aspect would not be investigated because science cannot do so.So for you, how can a metaphysical realm based upon faith have an impact on someone's acceptance of scientific discovery based upon evidence or vice versa? The individual is openly admitting that no evidence will be brought forth through belief in the metaphysical. I think that your bigger issue is not with the religious, but with those who dogmatically hold to the tenets of faith regardless of evidence and many religious individuals do not do this. However, this prospect of your argument I can understand and would agree that fundamentalism, in its many incarnations, is an affront to the massive gathering of human knowledge we have carefully cultivated through history. However, painting all religious individuals with the brush of cognitive dissonance such as you have done, even when their own stated beliefs refute your ideas, falls under the same issue of sticking to a dogmatic idea regardless of evidence to the contrary. You must understand that there is wide variation to how individuals use faith to come to answers and what answers they expect faith to give them. You turning it into a black and white issue is not beneficial to the discussion or toward reaching an understanding between the groups. Rather, it simply serves to create a more bolded dividing line between the religious and non-religious, an idea I personally find abhorrent when it is done by either side of the debate.

Then you should have stated that your issue was only with the dogmatic religions. However, your OP did not differentiate between the many different aspects of religion and focused heavily on Christianity as a whole. What about Buddhism's main tenets, are there any issues within the noble eightfold path or the Four Noble Truths? How about Christian religions that place God in the metaphysical? You must stop looking at the issue in a black and white.As for Fundamentalism, of course dogmatically holding a belief in the face of opposing evidence from the natural world is ridiculous, which is why many religions have begun the process of moving away from a strict dogma. The Catholic Church accepts evolution (along with most other faiths), denies the accuracy of Genesis (along with most other faiths), and questions the applicability of the Old Testament in many ways (eating shellfish, not stoning disobedient children, etc...). It seems like outside of the remaining fundamentalist groups, your biggests issues are with a mindset of Christianity from the rise to about the 1950's.ABE - Also, it was not likely that early Christians required the divinity of Christ, especially since Paul did not write much about his teachings or the man himself, but rather about how the Church should operate in different regions. The divinity of Christ (fully human/fully divine) was not fully agreed upon until 451. SourceEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

You can, as I said, Jesus's message in the New Testament is important, whether you believe that he is divine or just a really smart Jew, who saw that the poor and downtrodden needed help and pledged himself and anyone who wanted to follow him to help these individuals. Still a powerful message, and a person is still following in Jesus' example. Since this is the person you are supposed to trust to be a Christian, even following him without belief in the divine can make you a Christian. Also, you continue to conflate religion with individuals "Knowing" they are right and this isn't quite accurate. The beliefs of a congregation are varied and far different from one another. Does the religion itself have a dogma, most likely, but many individuals place these things as metaphysical experiences, outside of the purview of science. Just because the Holy Catholic Church states something, does not mean that all of the religious follow it to a T. Conflating the dogma of the entire faith with the faith of an individual is a huge mistake that you are making. Claiming that metaphysical explanations cannot exist alongside honest to god scientific discoveries is another mistake you are making because this is a belief that stands outside of science's applicability. Yes, Science can make a belief ludicrous to continue to hold onto, such as a flat Earth. However, this simply explains why a religion can exist alongside science with the required flexibility within the natural world. The spiritual/metaphysical/supernatural world it does not need to bow to science on because science does not and cannot say anything about this idea. Perhaps philosophy can attempt to refute the logic in this area, but science will leave it be. Science and Religion answer much different questions. First, let me be up front, I do not believe in any gods/God/deities, but you are placing science as the ultimate arbiter, when even science itself states that it cannot investigate outside of the natural world. Individuals who place God in a different plane of existence (i.e.-metaphysical) never run the risk of being told by scientific discovery that they were wrong because science leaves that for philosophy and religion. Should we continue to increase our knowledge of the natural world through science, of course, but it does not mean that religion and science cannot coexist reasonably well. Also, your statement about Zeus is not quite correct. Those religions were absorbed by other groups, primarily the Christians, and the powers were given to Yahweh, far before a solution for those "mysteries" was discovered by science. In fact, Thor and Zeus were well out of fashion prior to the discovery of the cause of lightning. So, here you state that these were unchanging religions, but that is not the case at all. They simply were absorbed and its members converted, it had nothing to do with science making Zeus and Thor look foolish. People can have faith that the holy book is accurate in some regards, which will possibly put them against scientific discoveries of the future, but many religions accept scientific discoveries, outside of the fundamentalist ones. So, how is discovering the origin of the species stepping on the Catholic's toes, when they gladly accept the findings of biological evolution?Did it for a while, of course, because you are expecting a paradigm shift. And guess what, these happen in Science as well! Look at Plate Tectonic Theory. This idea stepped on many toes within the scientific community and was laughed at by many professionals. Yet, as the evidence continued to build the community underwent a paradigm shift and acceptance was forthcoming based upon the amount of evidence (another example is the fact that meteors had caused great devestation in the past, this was not accepted at first).This is similar to what happens when science and religion meet, there is dischord followed slowly by resolution and a paradigm shift in the belief of the faithful, especially within non-fundamentalist Christianity. Science is not forced to back down, at least since the enlightenment, because it is evidence based. A great example you can see happening now is the much greater acceptance within the religious of the homosexual community. Is it there yet, no, but the process has begun and you find many Christians that are not against same sex marriage and a homosexual lifestyle....if you aren't seeing them, look to the younger generation especially. I'm not sure what religion you were raised in, but being raised Catholic, I was definitely told to question my faith, not "it is this way and just deal with it". Also, I was not looked down upon for questioning very fundamental aspects of the faith because looking for answers is one of the important aspects of the religion. And here again, you throw in the "inherently incompatible", which as previously stated is just you looking at the issue in black and white and not seeing any shades of gray. The Metaphysical, the acceptance of scientific discovery, the evolution of religion within the modern age. These are all aspects that you don't seem to be considering when you state that these ideas cannot be reconciled with one another. You keep seeing this because there is an enormous gap between fundamentalists and those who question their faith, help others, and find the answers that lead to a better life for themselves and those around them. I'm not exactly sure how you do not see the difference between one group that refuses to listen to things outside of a Holy Book and a congregation and a group of individuals who are willing to accept the discoveries of the modern world and learn how they can fit within the framework they already have from religion, including occasionally removing portions they had originally agreed with in their faith.ABE - Also, you still haven't answered how science and Buddhism cannot co-exist. Since you simply state religion, how is Buddhism affected by the discoveries, which they always tend to accept readily? My point here is that you seem to have recently come out of your religion and are angry at it, which i understand from my own deconversion, but simply placing all blame at the feet of religion is a faulty premise to begin with, especially when you don't even seem to be considering all religions.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.