• 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.

Science and Religion are Not Compatible

Lachean said:
Doesn't that question presuppose that we were put on this earth for a reason? How you considered the possibility that we live in a universe capable of supporting life, and we are just one of many examples of it on this particular backwater rock?
Click to expand...

That still doesn't answer the question of WHY we live in a universe capable of supporting life.
 
Dav said:
That still doesn't answer the question of WHY we live in a universe capable of supporting life.
Click to expand...

Because we have to, its called the Anthropic Principle.

We're on a planet capable of supporting life because we have to, else we wouldn't exist. Same goes for our universe.

If it couldn't host life, no one would be there to pose the question. And just as there are planets that cannot host live, physicists believe that there are universes with different laws, such that life could never come to be.
 
Lachean said:
Yes it really does, especially when people will take their quotes of out context to make them appear to support ideas that they do not.

Its very dishonest when creationists take Darwin or Einstein's words out of context to try to claim them as one of their own.

Especially in a Science/Religion thread, where said quotes from men of science are used in order to mask the issues of overlapping magisteria.

Whenever religion makes a scientific claim, such as the age of the universe, and it contradicts geology, then said religion is incompatible with science so long as it maintains its faith in the face of contradicting evidence.
Click to expand...

It's not that the religion is incompatitable. Just that science can't explain the...what would you call it..."miracles?". Isn't that the point of miracles? To show that whatever divinity is beyond what science can explain?
 
Lachean said:
Doesn't that question presuppose that we were put on this earth for a reason? How you considered the possibility that we live in a universe capable of supporting life, and we are just one of many examples of it on this particular backwater rock?
Click to expand...

Yes it does i suppose.
Well ofc i have but you can never know either way can you? Whether God exists and life after death are the two things we will never be certain of.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
It's not that the religion is incompatitable. Just that science can't explain the...what would you call it..."miracles?". Isn't that the point of miracles? To show that whatever divinity is beyond what science can explain?
Click to expand...

Science cannot even confirm that the phenomena has ever occured, let alone explain it.

Thats like suggesting that scientists cannot explain the flight of unicorns.

Miracles are a suspension of the laws of physics, they are in essence unfalsifiable and we cannot reproduce them.

What we can however do is judge the testimony of bronze age desert mystics, and compare it to the claims other mystics at the time that were regarded as just as valid.

Occams Razor allows us to disregard said testimony.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Yes it does i suppose.
Well ofc i have but you can never know either way can you? Whether God exists and life after death are the two things we will never be certain of.
Click to expand...

We cannot logically be certain of the nonexistence of leprechauns, however given that the believers make such a poor case; The belief can be safely disregarded.

There is no such thing as "know either way", there are simply people making claims they can support, and people who cannot support their claims.

The burden of proof for gods is on those who claim to know, or have reason to believe that said god exists.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
thetatteredflag, among other people.

Most notably the people who push the myth of Darwins deathbed conversion to Christianity.
Click to expand...
I don't see that. It seems to me that the basic point is, Science and religion are not incompatible. It doesn't mean you have to support one or the other. I usually like to bring up Sir Isaac Newton, who Defended his scientific findings to the catholic church, using religious principles. If sir Isaac Newton can do it, everyone can.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I don't see that. It seems to me that the basic point is, Science and religion are not incompatible. It doesn't mean you have to support one or the other. I usually like to bring up Sir Isaac Newton, who Defended his scientific findings to the catholic church, using religious principles. If sir Isaac Newton can do it, everyone can.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of overlapping magisteria?

Where a religion claims something about the natural world that science has a better, verifiable answer to? In these cases, such as the age of the world, exists an incompatibility that even the Pope claims that, in such a case, science wins.

Contradictions do not exist, anyone who maintains one due to religious dogma is holding a belief that is incompatible with science.

The rigors of logic, and the scientific method is not compatible with faith based claims about the natural world.

In short, if science says the earth is 4.3 billion years old, and your faith claims that the earth came to be after the time that we know the Chinese were domesticating water buffalo, the faith claim is not compatible.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Science cannot even confirm that the phenomena has ever occured, let alone explain it.

Thats like suggesting that scientists cannot explain the flight of unicorns.

Miracles are a suspension of the laws of physics, they are in essence unfalsifiable and we cannot reproduce them.

What we can however do is judge the testimony of bronze age desert mystics, and compare it to the claims other mystics at the time that were regarded as just as valid.

Occams Razor allows us to disregard said testimony.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about miracles in general......
 
Lachean said:
In short, if science says the earth is 4.3 billion years old, and your faith claims that the earth came to be after the time that we know the Chinese were domesticating water buffalo, the faith claim is not compatible.
Click to expand...
not compatible with what exactly?
 
Lachean said:
What about them? Do you have any reason to believe that they have ever occurred? Why?
Click to expand...
Miracles in general. you see, If the bible was meant to be a science book, why did miracles happen? You say that it is incompatible with science. Well, if you look at it so narrowly, then yes it is. However, if you are like me and believe that the great flood, egyptian plagues, and etc. Were all once-in-a-1000-year miracles and don't happen on a daily basis, then there is no problem with science.
 
Lachean said:
We cannot logically be certain of the nonexistence of leprechauns, however given that the believers make such a poor case; The belief can be safely disregarded.

There is no such thing as "know either way", there are simply people making claims they can support, and people who cannot support their claims.

The burden of proof for gods is on those who claim to know, or have reason to believe that said god exists.
Click to expand...

No that is true, logically what you are saying is correct.
And yes the burden of proof is on those who claim to know but i have no reason to say that i know anything. I don't, i believe in something which is different
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Miracles in general. you see, If the bible was meant to be a science book, why did miracles happen? You say that it is incompatible with science. Well, if you look at it so narrowly, then yes it is. However, if you are like me and believe that the great flood, egyptian plagues, and etc. Were all once-in-a-1000-year miracles and don't happen on a daily basis, then there is no problem with science.
Click to expand...

There is no geological evidence for the alleged flood, and it would have left some.

Do you honestly believe in 600 year old drunks and talking snakes?
 
Lachean said:
With the science of the matter, with geology.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you mean now.

For one thing, science/geology doesn't claim that the earth is 4.9 million years old. science doesn't claim anything. All it is is a tool to test and analyze and come up with a result.

You see, if you were to say that my faith contradicts what should be the results, then you would be correct. However, my religion doesn't use science, it uses "God did this for <insert reason>" You can try to put it to the test with science, but guess what? If you did, then it would lose it's divinity.
 
Reason is the only reliably method of differentiating true from false with regards to reality. Science is considered broadly either KNOWLEDGE (obtained via reason), or knowledge AND the methods used to acquire it (method drive reasoning...scientific method, etc.)

Religion is the opposite of this. That is, it's not just incompatible, it's the logical opposite.

Religion has no place in science, and has nothing to do with knowledge.

Regarding the value of religion in society, I think there is the placebo effect, among other things. It is a real, and complex, phenomenon, that can arise from FALSE beliefs. For some people, especially those who don't question too deeply and reveal the placebo, the placebo effect from a medicine, or a sermon or belief, may provide benefits that science cannot today, provide, and which may be more cost effective/convenient. Unfortunately, this indulgence leaves this type of person more vulnerable to being used by those in power (be it a church or a religious leader or political party), because not questioning can lead to anything, be it genocide, conquest, murder, torture, etc.

For me, it's like a free market analogy though. Would I rather pay a lot of taxes and "feel taken care of by the government", or would I rather be left to my own devices, but with so many options that I can carve out my own feeling of security the way I want it. I'm the latter. Life is hard, and short, but it's the only game in town.

-Mach
 
Lachean said:
What about them? Do you have any reason to believe that they have ever occurred? Why?
Click to expand...

Yes. The reason is because I read.

Much of the reasons are indirect. Miracles cannot be put to the test of science because miracles act outside the norm. Otherwise, is it a miracle?

Really, think about it, if the Great Flood could happen by any purely scientific reasons, would it be a miracle?

anyways. As I said, the evidence is indirect. A common one is the History of the nation of Israel itself. May I suggest a few books?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
For one thing, science/geology doesn't claim that the earth is 4.9 million years old. science doesn't claim anything. All it is is a tool to test and analyze and come up with a result.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, it's actually the RESULTS. Most classes in school are just a "science" of some particular field of study. The "scientific method" is more appropriate to discuss the tool aspect of sciences.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base

In this case, shorthand "science", refers to knowledge.
That's why in schools we have science, and not religion. history is the science of the past, english is the science of the english language, etc. Religion isn't knowledge, so it isn't taught.

-Mach
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Not exactly, it's actually the RESULTS. Most classes in school are just a "science" of some particular field of study. The "scientific method" is more appropriate to discuss the tool aspect of sciences.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base

In this case, shorthand "science", refers to knowledge.
That's why in schools we have science, and not religion. history is the science of the past, english is the science of the english language, etc. Religion isn't knowledge, so it isn't taught.

-Mach
Click to expand...
noted.......
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Oh, I see what you mean now.

For one thing, science/geology doesn't claim that the earth is 4.9 million years old. science doesn't claim anything. All it is is a tool to test and analyze and come up with a result.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I should not have personified science.

DarkWizard12 said:
You see, if you were to say that my faith contradicts what should be the results, then you would be correct.
Click to expand...

Still in agreement.

DarkWizard12 said:
However, my religion doesn't use science, it uses "God did this for <insert reason>" You can try to put it to the test with science, but guess what? If you did, then it would lose it's divinity.
Click to expand...

Here is where you lose me, its seems you've substituted "my faith says " with "my religion says" and that somehow if you test said claim, its no longer divine?!?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Yes. The reason is because I read.
Click to expand...

Read what? A scripture that says so? Do you not see that this is a tautology?

You believe what the bible says, because the bible says it?

DarkWizard12 said:
Much of the reasons are indirect. Miracles cannot be put to the test of science because miracles act outside the norm. Otherwise, is it a miracle?

Really, think about it, if the Great Flood could happen by any purely scientific reasons, would it be a miracle?
Click to expand...

IMO, I believe that any significant advance in technology is indistinguishable from magic.

To me, a miracle is something, if observed, violates our scientific understanding of nature. But it is occuring in nature, so there must be some mechanism by which it is occuring.

DarkWizard12 said:
anyways. As I said, the evidence is indirect. A common one is the History of the nation of Israel itself. May I suggest a few books?
Click to expand...

I don't tend to read books until someone can articulate the thesis, then should I find it challenging I will seek the nuances.

Is this alleged evidence "testimony"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom