Do we need science to back up religion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Some religions (esp. Islam) stated that their scripture includes scientific findings, thereby being the right one. Is there any merit for this position? Should a religion have a scientific back-up?

---

I think the better question is "Can a religion which wishes to have a scientific backup support it's claims scientifically?" So far, this hasn't happened.The only reason any religions want to use science to strengthen their case is to get more people to follow the given religion.IMO it cheapens both religion and science to try to "prove" the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran with a science. If religion is based upon faith, then why does it need to be proven by modern science? Is faith so weak that it requires constant proving?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Religion is based on faith- but faith doesn't mean believing something that is wrong or ludicrous. Also, YECs don't try to "prove" the bible- they simply try to interpret evidence under a biblical model.

---

The belief in the worldwide Biblical Flood, for example, has no physical evidence to support it.YEC'ers believe in it first and then attempt to find support for a global flood in physical natural evidence while ignoring all evidence which points away from such an event.You can call it "interpreting evidence under a Biblical perspective" if you want to; it certainly sounds better phrased that way. At day's end, however, it's still and exercise in trying to prove the Bible true.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think it's pretty horrifying when people judge moral guilt or innocense with scientific certitude, so I don't think religion needs backup from science.

​

Religion is of the heart, and science is of the mind, and in the struggle between them, the heart should always win. Maybe corny, but still basicly true in my opinion.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

So, should a child be denied a blood transfusion which would save her life (science/mind) because her parents follow a religion which forbids such procedures (religion/heart)?There need not be any struggle between science and religion. The only struggle which occurs is when religion demands that one must believe despite what science has discovered about the world.IOW, religions cause this struggle because they cannot or will not change and grow, and they demand that their followers keep their minds in ancient times.What kind of God/gods would take joy in followers who purposefully stunted their divinely-created intellects, choosing to remain ignorant and narrow-minded?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Precisely my point. In the same way that the existence of God can be based on evidence.

---

Not scientific evidence, Cobra.Philosophical evidence, perhaps, but nothing that will stand up to science.Doesn't make it less important, but it isn't fair, nor is it accurate, to imply that the evidence for the existence electrons (which any physicist can see for themselves by replicating the experiments) is the same evidence for the existence of God/s (which is purely subjective and subject to individual interpretation).Apples and oranges.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Reason #4--"God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world"

​

I don't know how to logically deconstruct this argument. I've seen it done though.
The only thing I know is that I've been an atheist for 3 years and I've yet to kill, rape or torture anyone.

---

So, if God decided it was good and moral behavior to murder and pilliage at will, would it then be considered perfectly OK to murder and pilliage?If you disagree that God would ever consider murdering and pilliaging at will good and moral behavior, then God, cannot possibly be the source of objective moral values.Morals must come from somewhere else if God is restricted in what God can declare what behaviors are moral.

quote:

---

Reason #6--"God can be immediately known and experienced"

​

"This isn't really an argument for God's existence; rather it's the claim that you can know that God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing Him."
"If you're sincerely seeking God, then God will make His existence evident to you."

---

Really? How can I tell the difference between God making his existence known to me and my brain imagining that God is making his existence known to me?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
You're right- they are a bit different. Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think the point remains the same.

---

Well, if it's a bad analogy, then the point doesn't remain the same.One uses objective, "anyone-can-get-the-same-results" methods, and the other relies on pure, subjective, individual, "all-happening-inside-the-individuals'-head-and-nobody-else's" methods.Apples and oranges.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b] Oh yes I can! Let me explain myself here.

​

You understand that it is morally incorrect to murder. In my view, this is because God has placed within us the knowledge of a basic moral code.[/QUOTE]

​

God didn't do that. Society/culture did that.

​

quote:

---

However, if we lived in a different universe- for example one in which God did not think it was immoral to murder- humans would not have that in their moral code. Thus, it would be perfectly fine for us to murder and we would not think anything of it.

---

​

Replace "universe" with "culture" and I think you will get it right.

​

"The only reason that you think I am following blindly is because of the moral code that you have inside of you. You can't possibly imagine it being morally correct to murder someone- because of your moral code that God has given you.

---

Except that it is OK to a lot of people (many of them Christians) to kill certain criminals, or to kill in the name of war, or to kill in self defense, etc. Infanticide is not considered murder in many cultures, actually. [QUOTE]However, if the moral code was different, so would your opinion of what is right and wrong. For example, in this alternate universe it may be morally incorrect to give somebody a gift. In this universe, shrafinator might ask me, "What if God were to say that giving people gifts is OK?", in which case I would have to give the same explanation.Hopefully what I just said is not as confusing as I think it is.[/b][/QUOTE]No, not confusing at all, and logically consistent. I'm impressed!However, it is also not at all demonstrable that God is the source of morals. It is much more likely that cultures create their own moral codes.There are some univeral morals, but these can be explained through evolutionary means, as explained in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Obviously there is a bit of difference of opinion here- and I suppose it is mostly a matter of perspective. If you are an atheist, obviously the existance of universal morals is not going to convince you that God exists.

---

This works for Agnostics like myself, as well. I would also like to point out that it's possible to hod a belief in God, yet not believe that God is the source of all morals.If God is the source of everything, as many Christians believe, then He must be the source of all evil, as well. Otherwise the logic is inconsistent.