So a friend says Science and christianity mix....

[CRHThree]

I'm not really sure how this pans out but a buddy of mine posted something on Facebook asking people whether or not they believe in god/s ( because he's doing a term paper on religion). He himself is an atheist, and many people replied with the i do or i don't response. I went a bit further and stated reasons for my disbelief in the idea that science is the way and religion is a joke (in so many words of course I was a bit more sensitive to others with faith). and was met with this response that follows ( names will be changed):

Bane Hoff: Religion is a yoke no man can carry. It's the most sadistic, burdening invention man has ever created. The sad thing is that so many people try and label The Bible as a religion without having truly even read nor understanding it.

The thing is, Christ said that stuff above, not me. Christianity was meant to be a Fellowship. A Spiritual connection with a loving creator. Not a ridiculous burden to have to carry on you. (Like any religion) What so many people have made it today doesn't mean that''s what it actually is.

Let's say I was a celebrity. I could sing. I was famous, young and popular. (Miley Cyrus, I'm looking at you, dear) Now, I don't "rock out". I'm not "metal". I DEFINITELY don't live a "rock and roll lifestyle", but I call myself a "Rock Star" of a great "Rock Band".

Let's pause here... How many people out there hate her for saying this? Think she's crazy? "SHE'S NOT A ROCK STAR! SHE'S A FREAKIN' POP 'TARD!", they shout.

Well, correct sir. You now reach my point. Because a person(s) say they are something and live and stupid, embarrassing life that undermines every true meaning of the original status from which they call themselves, doesn't make them a "Rock Star". Just like it doesn't make all of these many nut jobs "Christians", just because they "say" they are.

So, this answer is to touch base on a lot of misconceptions of Christianity. A lot of which distort a true vision of what it means to be a Christian. For instance, I strongly believe in Science. ...Because God created it to be there for our study, structure and amazement. He says so numerous times in the Scripture. People, Christian or otherwise, who think God & Science cannot intermingle are in denial.

I'm pointing to your response, CRHThree. Not all "Christians" think the entire universe is a couple thousand years old. Those are called "Young Earth Christians". The Bible does not teach that, and that thought process comes from people not truly reading or studying the Bible, Christian or otherwise. I, myself, am not one of those. I have read the Bible for myself. Studied it. Backtracked it. Matched it against historical documents. It's incredible what you find when you dig with a shovel, and not with just your hands. ...Or your friend's hands, for that matter... ...Understand?

CRHThree, try checking out http://www.godandscience.org/ It's a pretty epic site. It's ran by numerous Masters of SCIENCE graduates who were once Atheists and have had time to measure the Science against the Bible... And have found that, unlike oil and water, these two ingredients DO mix! Whether or not you believe any of it doesn't change the fact that it's still a great read! I challenge you to check it out! ♥

Edward, feel free to hit me up. If you want paper material, I would be happy to share with you some great information... It might just blow your mind! ^___^

~ Bane
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." - 1 Corinthians 13:13

Of course I responded saying that I did not in fact believe every christian believed the earth was only 6000 years old. But I did not elaborate because I am friend with the fellow and did not want to offend him. So now I ask you all. Do you think Science and christianity mix? I honestly don't. I find it to be a limiting factor. I would like others opinions tho.

 

[Millennium]

Christianity says everything appeared on earth in its modern form
Science says otherwise

Christianity says that virgins can give birth without needing to undergo certain surgury
Science argues

Religion says go had no beginning
Science says everything does

Religion says god created everything, including the universe
Science says the big bang

Religion says it took god 3 days to make the earth and 1 day to create the sun
Science says that if it took him 3 days to make the earth, it would take 2.73972603 × 10^14 years to make the stars in the MMilky was alone

Religion actually gets the date of 6000-10000 years from the bible by counting down the generational since Adam and Eve
Using hundreds of forms of dating, we know that the earth is about 4.5 billion and suspect the universe to be about 13.7. Those4 two don't fit

Religion says that something omni-potent exists
Science says that this is impossible

Religion says that something exists that is not visible to us either by distance or by being simply invisible
Science says that anything with these traits could not possibly effect the earth.

Religion says god made light, the earth, the stars, and animals
Science says that 30% of the universe is dark matter and 69% is nothing. When did he create that?

Religion tells us that diseases are caused by demons
Science tells us that they are caused microscopic organisms and that the notion held us back many years.

Religion said that the earth is flat, and that everything revolves around it
Science hopes you already know what you think on this one and realize how badly this effected hundreds of years of human development.

Religion/Science don't mix. Period

 

[CRHThree]

Lol nice response. but these are all obvious or out of date answers that just won't cut it. I'm talkin about a guy who tries to use science and logic to prove god exist, he's already stated he doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old. I need something a bit edgier and more hard cut. Thanks for the contribution tho

 

[Millennium]

Lol nice response. but these are all obvious or out of date answers that just won't cut it. I'm talkin about a guy who tries to use science and logic to prove god exist, he's already stated he doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old. I need something a bit edgier and more hard cut. Thanks for the contribution tho

He might have stated it, but religion states otherwise. The fact that rocks exist is an obvious an out of date idea and yet, it still holds truth and meaning in relation to some topics.

 

[CRHThree]

true true. as i said on chat earlier when discussing this, i believe he is an atheist waiting to happen. He's way too smart for simple boundaries of religion that bind him to certain ideas. I think it's a mixture of his upbringing and fear/ desire for an afterworld/ punishment, that keeps him from losing this bias that christianity imposes.

 

[Unwardil]

Well, here's the thing.

Yes, they do mix. Just so long as you're willing to interpret Christianity as something other than the literal truth. If you're going to cherry pick your morality from the bible on all the topics that science is either inconclusive about or simply doesn't have a moral standpoint, then they mix just fine. This can even apply to the concept of God for that matter. If you treat God like a metaphor rather than like an actual person then there's absolutely no conflict.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Can't agree with that. There is an inherent conflict between science and religion. Believing in anything without supporting evidence is the antithesis of science, and this conflict is inescapable. There is absolutely no way to reconcile these positions, and anybody who suggests that they have done so successfully is either lying or doesn't understand how science works.

That's not to say, of course, that people who believe ridiculous shit can't do good science, but the simple fact is that they're not applying scientific principles to their beliefs. This is a conflict, however you slice it.

Additional:

It should also be pointed out that holding any belief without evidence will bias conclusions, and opens one up to believing other things without evidence. This is, again, an unresolvable conflict.

 

[CRHThree]

Well, here's the thing.

Yes, they do mix. Just so long as you're willing to interpret Christianity as something other than the literal truth. If you're going to cherry pick your morality from the bible on all the topics that science is either inconclusive about or simply doesn't have a moral standpoint, then they mix just fine. This can even apply to the concept of God for that matter. If you treat God like a metaphor rather than like an actual person then there's absolutely no conflict.

amazing response, my thoughts exactly. now how can i phrase this without offending him?

 

[Millennium]

Well, here's the thing.

Yes, they do mix. Just so long as you're willing to interpret Christianity as something other than the literal truth. If you're going to cherry pick your morality from the bible on all the topics that science is either inconclusive about or simply doesn't have a moral standpoint, then they mix just fine. This can even apply to the concept of God for that matter. If you treat God like a metaphor rather than like an actual person then there's absolutely no conflict.

amazing response, my thoughts exactly. now how can i phrase this without offending him?

You can't

 

[lrkun]

Well, here's the thing.

Yes, they do mix. Just so long as you're willing to interpret Christianity as something other than the literal truth. If you're going to cherry pick your morality from the bible on all the topics that science is either inconclusive about or simply doesn't have a moral standpoint, then they mix just fine. This can even apply to the concept of God for that matter. If you treat God like a metaphor rather than like an actual person then there's absolutely no conflict.

amazing response, my thoughts exactly. now how can i phrase this without offending him?

If you value your friendship, it's best not to bring this topic up. However, if it can't be avoided, then do what you have to do.

 

[nasher168]

Unless your friend is a really watered down christian, the virgin Mary stuff that Millennium spoke of might be the best example to use.

However, I know of numerous christians who don't even believe in that. They just believe that the overall message-at least in the New Testament-was probably at least partly inspired by some benevolent intelligence who might have had a hand in creating things. If this is the case with your friend, then (and this can also perhaps be of use against a more firm believer) simply to state that science requires evidence above all else, whilst Christianity requires an amount of faith, a concept incompatible with science.

 

[Unwardil]

Can't agree with that. There is an inherent conflict between science and religion. Believing in anything without supporting evidence is the antithesis of science, and this conflict is inescapable. There is absolutely no way to reconcile these positions, and anybody who suggests that they have done so successfully is either lying or doesn't understand how science works.

That's not to say, of course, that people who believe ridiculous shit can't do good science, but the simple fact is that they're not applying scientific principles to their beliefs. This is a conflict, however you slice it.

Additional:

It should also be pointed out that holding any belief without evidence will bias conclusions, and opens one up to believing other things without evidence. This is, again, an unresolvable conflict.

But when I say the moon was a ghostly galleon, I'm not actually saying that I believe that, just in this one case, several billion tons of matter have transformed themselves into a spectral 17th century sailing vessel.

There is no scientific evidence you can bring to the table that will tell you the value of human life. Oh sure, you can bring evidence like evolutionary advantages for cultures who value human life, versus those which don't, but it's all very much in the realm of philosophy to determine that, generally speaking, killing is wrong. If it's useful to you to imagine that there is a God who is watching your every action, like some Jimminey Cricket in the sky, then how is this belief in said metaphorical animated chirping insect going to conflict with science?

Now then Hack, while I'm sure you subject the vast majority of your morals and ethics to a ruthless regimen of peer reviewed study, are you going to actually sit there and tell me you have a good scientific reason to love your mother? Sure, science will tell you what causes that feeling and even give a couple of compelling reasons as to why it happens, but does that tell you that it's right?

No, no it doesn't. It's right because it feels right, even when it doesn't. Even for all the people with incredibly defective mothers who wish they didn't love them unconditionally, they just can't help it and no amount of sciencing it is going to change that... Well, if you're a really cold bastard, there's always drugs, but I digress.

The point is, there's loads of things that everybody does without the slightest bit of thought or evidence required for the simple reason that if we needed to ratify every single action we ever took with some long involved peer reviewed process we'd never survive long enough to feed ourselves so in short, don't try pulling that slippery slope argument here.

 

[CRHThree]

If you value your friendship, it's best not to bring this topic up. However, if it can't be avoided, then do what you have to do.

you are probably correct. I most likely will just avoid the question. Tho it's a pity. I imagine he would be able to do great things with a mind like his if it was relinquished of his homegrown bias.

 

[lrkun]

If you value your friendship, it's best not to bring this topic up. However, if it can't be avoided, then do what you have to do.

you are probably correct. I most likely will just avoid the question. Tho it's a pity. I imagine he would be able to do great things with a mind like his if it was relinquished of his homegrown bias.

Maybe he is already doing great things even if he is a theist. Being a theist or atheist or something else does not mean he or she is better than the other. What matters is that the person is a critical thinker.

 

[CRHThree]

you are probably correct. I most likely will just avoid the question. Tho it's a pity. I imagine he would be able to do great things with a mind like his if it was relinquished of his homegrown bias.

Maybe he is already doing great things even if he is a theist. Being a theist or atheist or something else does not mean he or she is better than the other. What matters is that the person is a critical thinker.

Oh i never said that. do not misunderstand me. It's not the theism part that I have a problem with. I have many theistic- non religious friends. But it's his ...rule that certain things are to be ignored by christianity. That condemning others to hell through their beliefs is okay, as in jesus is right but that makes other religions wrong on it's own. See i dno't think he'll be christian for long. i do believe he'll remain theistic, but soon will lose religious obstruction.

 

[lrkun]

Oh i never said that. do not misunderstand me. It's not the theism part that I have a problem with. I have many theistic- non religious friends. But it's his ...rule that certain things are to be ignored by christianity. That condemning others to hell through their beliefs is okay, as in jesus is right but that makes other religions wrong on it's own. See i dno't think he'll be christian for long. i do believe he'll remain theistic, but soon will lose religious obstruction.

Please elaborate on things which are to be ignored by Christianity. Maybe if we know what that is, we can atleast judge for ourselves here if it's beneficial or unbeneficial.

 

[Deleted member 619]

There is no scientific evidence you can bring to the table that will tell you the value of human life.

I'd be interested in knowing what reason you might think that it has any, from a purely objective perspective.

Now then Hack, while I'm sure you subject the vast majority of your morals and ethics to a ruthless regimen of peer reviewed study,

No, but I do subject them to critical thought. Indeed, treating my 'morals' as an entity is fallacious. I subject every situation to critical reason and determine what that reason tells me is the best couorse of action, within the simple paradigms of the golden rule and the best result for the greater number.

are you going to actually sit there and tell me you have a good scientific reason to love your mother?

That's assuming that I do love my mother. In any event, love is simply a biochemical reaction to familiar stimuli. Further, this is a 'why' question, and like so many such questions, there's no good reason to suppose that there is a why.

Sure, science will tell you what causes that feeling and even give a couple of compelling reasons as to why it happens, but does that tell you that it's right?

Right? What's that?

No, no it doesn't. It's right because it feels right, even when it doesn't. Even for all the people with incredibly defective mothers who wish they didn't love them unconditionally, they just can't help it and no amount of sciencing it is going to change that... Well, if you're a really cold bastard, there's always drugs, but I digress.

Well, I'm not a cold bastard, but there's still drugs. Drugs are our mates.

The point is, there's loads of things that everybody does without the slightest bit of thought or evidence required for the simple reason that if we needed to ratify every single action we ever took with some long involved peer reviewed process we'd never survive long enough to feed ourselves so in short, don't try pulling that slippery slope argument here.

You seem to think that peer-review is the sum total of science. It isn't. Peer-review is simply quality control for ideas.

Anyhoo, none of this addresses my point, which was that anything as inherently in conflict with critical thought as unevidenced beliefs is, at the risk of being tautological, in conflict with science.

 

[CRHThree]

Oh i never said that. do not misunderstand me. It's not the theism part that I have a problem with. I have many theistic- non religious friends. But it's his ...rule that certain things are to be ignored by christianity. That condemning others to hell through their beliefs is okay, as in jesus is right but that makes other religions wrong on it's own. See i dno't think he'll be christian for long. i do believe he'll remain theistic, but soon will lose religious obstruction.

Please elaborate on things which are to be ignored by Christianity. Maybe if we know what that is, we can atleast judge for ourselves here if it's beneficial or unbeneficial.

I've already given one. the idea that Jesus is the one and only answer, and that all others are completely wrong and will go to hell unless converted, that homosexuals are morally corrupt is another. That no matter what, even tho i live my life to be as good a person i can be, because im atheist,that when i die if it happens that i was wrong i go to hell, no matter the numerous good deeds i've done. And of course there are other tedious things and rituals they go through that aren't really as important.

 

[mirandansa]

Please elaborate on things which are to be ignored by Christianity. Maybe if we know what that is, we can atleast judge for ourselves here if it's beneficial or unbeneficial.

I've already given one. the idea that Jesus is the one and only answer, and that all others are completely wrong and will go to hell unless converted, that homosexuals are morally corrupt is another. That no matter what, even tho i live my life to be as good a person i can be, because im atheist,that when i die if it happens that i was wrong i go to hell, no matter the numerous good deeds i've done. And of course there are other tedious things and rituals they go through that aren't really as important.

Consider these aspects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theology

 

[CRHThree]

I've already given one. the idea that Jesus is the one and only answer, and that all others are completely wrong and will go to hell unless converted, that homosexuals are morally corrupt is another. That no matter what, even tho i live my life to be as good a person i can be, because im atheist,that when i die if it happens that i was wrong i go to hell, no matter the numerous good deeds i've done. And of course there are other tedious things and rituals they go through that aren't really as important.

Consider these aspects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theology

You can change simple views all you want but as stated, by someone else, earlier, it all comes down to cherrypicking what you want to believe in. Which is just insensible.