• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you think science and religion conflict with each other ?

Science and religion conflict with each other ?

  • yes

    Votes: 38 33.3%

  • no

    Votes: 55 48.2%

  • other

    Votes: 21 18.4%
  • Total voters
    114
obvious Child said:
Compare Baptists to Utilitarians. Their views of substance are oceans apart.
Click to expand...

Not least because Utilitarianism is not Christianity, which is also, it is worth noting, worlds apart from Scientology.

A near monopoly for a while though. The RCC has diminished as a force quite a bit though.
Click to expand...

Never quite so much as that, no. The RCC has always had a competitor in Christianity.

I have no idea. I just know that the Koran has changed over time.
Click to expand...

Well it and the Hadith were not written (as I recall) by or under the direction of the first generation.

Easy. Does it produce the expected out come? Can you commercialize it? Part of what makes Young Earth Creationism such garbage is that nothing it says can be turned into a product other than propaganda. You can't use it to search for hydrocarbons. You can't use it understand and manage the water tables. You can't use it to for agricultural and drug development. Science can be used by man to produce tangible goods. How does Jonah's time in the Whale produce a microchip?
Click to expand...

A microchip? Drug Development? Your argument for the truth of Science is Science?

Again, it may be true (I believe it is), but it is circular, dependent ultimately upon an a priori assignment of truth upon which other proofs are built.
 
johndylan1 said:
Let's lobby to change the koran again! how about we take out all the jihad stuff and update the passages dealing with women? :)
Click to expand...

there is nothing about jihad in Koran.it doesnt advise you to attack other countries to make them muslim.
 
cpwill said:
Not least because Utilitarianism is not Christianity, which is also, it is worth noting, worlds apart from Scientology.
Click to expand...

I meant Unitarian.

Never quite so much as that, no. The RCC has always had a competitor in Christianity.
Click to expand...

Having tiny competitors doesn't mean you're not a functional monopoly.

A microchip? Drug Development? Your argument for the truth of Science is Science?

Again, it may be true (I believe it is), but it is circular, dependent ultimately upon an a priori assignment of truth upon which other proofs are built.
Click to expand...

How is it circular? Science can produce tangible products. Religion is based on faith. You cannot "test" faith in any scientific fashion. Your argument is descending into idiocy where nothing can ever be proven and we should all just give up on any notion of truth.
 
obvious Child said:
I meant Unitarian.
Click to expand...

:shrug: same story. Unitarianism is not Christianity, as it rejects the Trinity. They are as accepting of Pagan ideas as they are of any ones' originating in that faith. And even if you wish to discuss it as an evolutionary branch-off, it is still not quite as much a change as we have seen in science.

Having tiny competitors doesn't mean you're not a functional monopoly.
Click to expand...

:lol: the Greek Orthodox faith predates (arguably) the Roman one, and at the time of the split had a functional empire backing it, while Rome did not. Tiny was not an issue.

How is it circular? Science can produce tangible products. Religion is based on faith. You cannot "test" faith in any scientific fashion. Your argument is descending into idiocy where nothing can ever be proven and we should all just give up on any notion of truth.
Click to expand...

Science is based on faith in the scientific method. It is the a priori assumption that you use to draw relationships. Reject it, and there is no reason to believe that just because objects fall to the floor there is a natural force attracting all matter to all matter, because the evidence no longer exists.

Now, does that mean gravity cannot be proven? No. So long as we are willing to admit that we are taking on faith the a priori assumption of the scientific method as True, then with the caveat of that noted assumption Gravity can, indeed, be demonstrated.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: same story. Unitarianism is not Christianity, as it rejects the Trinity. They are as accepting of Pagan ideas as they are of any ones' originating in that faith. And even if you wish to discuss it as an evolutionary branch-off, it is still not quite as much a change as we have seen in science.



:lol: the Greek Orthodox faith predates (arguably) the Roman one, and at the time of the split had a functional empire backing it, while Rome did not. Tiny was not an issue.



Science is based on faith in the scientific method. It is the a priori assumption that you use to draw relationships. Reject it, and there is no reason to believe that just because objects fall to the floor there is a natural force attracting all matter to all matter, because the evidence no longer exists.

Now, does that mean gravity cannot be proven? No. So long as we are willing to admit that we are taking on faith the a priori assumption of the scientific method as True, then with the caveat of that noted assumption Gravity can, indeed, be demonstrated.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to deal with the complete idiocy your argument is going to. I know where this goes and it's a complete absolute waste of time. Nothing can be proven, nothing is the truth, let's just give up. Enjoy possibly the dumbest argument someone can make by yourself.
 
obvious Child said:
I'm not going to deal with the complete idiocy your argument is going to. I know where this goes and it's a complete absolute waste of time. Nothing can be proven, nothing is the truth, let's just give up. Enjoy possibly the dumbest argument someone can make by yourself.
Click to expand...

:roll: on the contrary. I'm a Christian - my belief system is dependent not just on the existence of truth, but of Truth. I simply acknowledge the a prior faith based assumptions upon which that system is built. I believe the Scientific Method is our best tool for exploring the laws and wonders of the natural world. i also believe in revelation from the Divine, and a Creator. Since I believe both of these things are true, I also believe that the scientific method will bring us closer to understanding the nature of God's creation, and point towards revelation. But I'm also capable of noting both as assumptions.
 
Yes and no
They do, of course, in practice..... but IMO, nothing in religion is scientifically true.
Actually, they are two different areas and should not conflict.....they I see things, but many others disagree and use one in lieu of the other...then, the confliction is huge..
 
cpwill said:
Science is based on faith in the scientific method. It is the a priori assumption that you use to draw relationships. Reject it, and there is no reason to believe that just because objects fall to the floor there is a natural force attracting all matter to all matter, because the evidence no longer exists.

Now, does that mean gravity cannot be proven? No. So long as we are willing to admit that we are taking on faith the a priori assumption of the scientific method as True, then with the caveat of that noted assumption Gravity can, indeed, be demonstrated.
Click to expand...

All world views are predicated upon a number of metaphysical and ontological assumptions (regardless of whether he who holds that view is aware that he's making such assumptions). Hell, the notion that there even exists a world outside of your mind on which to have an opinion assumes some level of philosophical realism. Before you can even ponder whether God exists you are making a bunch of said assumptions about the nature of reality.

Modern scientific thought is no exception. But many of those assumptions are simply a matter of practicality, and others we make unintentionally just by natural intuition. Rejecting causality, for example, renders attempting to do anything other than sit in your chair and drool on yourself futile. But that's silly, so we just assume that causal relationships exist as they appear to and that we can get out of our chairs and go effect change in the world around us.

I disagree that science claims truth about anything. That's the business of philosophy. Science is about making useful predictions. Science proposes a theory explaining some aspect of reality. That theory predicts certain occurrences. If we observe said occurrences, then we keep using the theory. The theory has not been proven and whether it is actually "true" is largely irrelevant (although one obvious explanation for why the theory is correctly predicting observations is that the theory is correct - that reality happens to be as the theory says reality is).

For example, Newton's laws of motion. Newton's laws of motion are, technically, incorrect. They have been superseded by relativity and are, at best, only an approximation of what is actually happening. But because Newton's laws of motion still make useful predictions, they are still an excellent scientific theory and one that will continue to be taught to young physics students as long as humans walk the earth.
 
I view religion as the naked being lead by the blind. There is no real religious argument against science. When realities are discovered superstition is abandoned and folklore lost.
 
johndylan1 said:
"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan
Click to expand...

those verses dont advise you to attack other countries or rebel against your own country in the name of religion.such verses about wars are mostly related to the ones having been made between arabic tribes and jews and arabs when teh islam was spreading in that region.many islamists just folllow so called hadiths and traditions (l call them tarditions :lol:) practised during the period of the prophet. muslims dont regard such islamist monsters as muslim because they dont follow whats written in Quran and they create their own tarditions :mrgreen:.

191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
 
Last edited:
The German said:
Depends in what people belive in.


Several high ranking Saudi clerics believe and preach that the earth is flat.................... if 2 billion people believed that, would it be true?
Click to expand...

Nope. There is no reason to neglect empirical data even if 7 billion people believed that earth was flat.
 
Religion itself does not conflict with science. They are two separate things. One is based on facts and reason, the other faith and attempts to explain things that couldn't be explained at one time.

Certain religious beliefs from various religions do conflict with established scientific principles.
 
I’ve never considered science as oppositional to faith. Scientific research is yet another way to celebrate the glory of God, whose limitless imagination cannot even be fathomed, only discovered in part. I don’t understand the conflict: Scientific fact is what it is, and the Creator is even more than this.
 
Medusa said:
.vote please.thank you
Click to expand...

You really should specify what Religion you are talking about. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism?

If Christianity, which part. Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc?

If Islam, which ones, the Shia or the Sunni or one of the lesser sects?

If Buddhism, which Buddhist, the ones that believe in the divinity of Buddha or the other believes that fall under that religious heading?

Or do you mean other religions like Shintoism, Druidism, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witness, Moonies, the Witches (I cannot think of the name of their religion atm), Brahmin's, Hinduism?

Or maybe the Norse gods, or the Greek Pantheon or the Roman, The Egyptian gods?

Or maybe Atheism?

The term "Religion" covers a lot of different belief systems, your question may be more answerable if you narrow it down some.
 
DVSentinel said:
You really should specify what Religion you are talking about. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism?

If Christianity, which part. Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc?

If Islam, which ones, the Shia or the Sunni or one of the lesser sects?

If Buddhism, which Buddhist, the ones that believe in the divinity of Buddha or the other believes that fall under that religious heading?

Or do you mean other religions like Shintoism, Druidism, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witness, Moonies, the Witches (I cannot think of the name of their religion atm), Brahmin's, Hinduism?

Or maybe the Norse gods, or the Greek Pantheon or the Roman, The Egyptian gods?

Or maybe Atheism?

The term "Religion" covers a lot of different belief systems, your question may be more answerable if you narrow it down some.
Click to expand...
l am too much lazy to analyze all of them one by one .lets go deductively for only abrahamic religions
 
Medusa said:
l am too much lazy to analyze all of them one by one .lets go deductively for only abrahamic religions
Click to expand...

That still leaves a lot.

Personally, I'm Christian. However I am not a literalist. To me, science is defining and figuring out how God did things. I cannot not conflict with my religion because God and Science are inextricably linked. We, the race not necessarily each individual, are the Child/ren of God. As any good parent, I don't see God wanting his children to grow up to be ignorant and stupid. He would want us to learn and to grow.
 
Religion has the potential to conflict with everything that's not itself.
 
Medusa said:
those verses dont advise you to attack other countries or rebel against your own country in the name of religion.such verses about wars are mostly related to the ones having been made between arabic tribes and jews and arabs when teh islam was spreading in that region.many islamists just folllow so called hadiths and traditions (l call them tarditions :lol:) practised during the period of the prophet. muslims dont regard such islamist monsters as muslim because they dont follow whats written in Quran and they create their own tarditions :mrgreen:.

191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
Click to expand...

And the majority of Arabic speaking Muslims disagree with you. Hence the chaos all over the globe. Islam read correctly from the Koran, is responsible for violent jihad. The proof is in the pudding, or as Jesus likes to say "you will Know them by their fruit"
 
johndylan1 said:
And the majority of Arabic speaking Muslims disagree with you. Hence the chaos all over the globe. Islam read correctly from the Koran, is responsible for violent jihad. The proof is in the pudding, or as Jesus likes to say "you will Know them by their fruit"
Click to expand...

War with Islam is inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom