Law1 min ago
Rough estimate - Religion?
at what point (if ever) will the vast, vast majority of Christians admit that, due to Scientific discoveries, there is NO chance that a lot of the beliefs they hold so dearly are possible/actually occured? (yes i know there will always be a hard core of believers against the impossible odds...). Will it be the case that the teaching/practising or Christianity just gradually dies out (as a result of Scientific progress?...)
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by oligopoly. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The definition of faith is belief in something of which there is no proof. That said I think most Christians must have an inkling that a lot of the Bible is metaphor, the world wasn't created in 7 days, Mary didn't have a virgin birth, nor was the Red Sea parted, etc. etc. but apart from the tall stories the Christian religion is about honesty, helping thy neighour, generosity and all the rest of it and no amount of scientific discoveries can, nor should, affect these principles.
I have no religion in case you are wondering.
I have no religion in case you are wondering.
This question or some derivation is asked regularly on this site. I usually launch into a lengthy discourse which is met by an equally lengthy and often derogatory offense. Suffice it to say, when asked directly what the poster can offer for scientific evidence contrary to Judaeo/Christian understanding of the Scripture (both Old and New Covenants), the debate quickly degenerates into how stupid and misguided any defender of the faith must be. So... realizing all that... what evidence do you offer for your position oligopoly, or is this only an exercise in pointless argument and regurgetation of the usual misinterpretations? I fully support your right to believe as you wish, but what, specifically are the foundations for that belief?
One has to look no further, as an example, to the literally earth-shaking (no pun intended) discovery of the Big Bang Theory to understand the implications of a universe with a beginning to cherished scientific beliefs held prior to it's revelation only within the last 25 years or so.
Additionally, no archaeological discoveries have ever contradicted evidence within Scripture. To be sure, this isn't to say that all of Scripture, or even a majority has been confirmed, but the evidence mounts to the veracity of the historical evidence contained therein... citations at your request...
It's also true that the msjority of humanitarian efforts, such as natural disaster relief, hospitals, schools in 3rd world countries, and other equally selfless endeavors are the work of Judaeo/Christian organizations and ideals. I have yet to see, as I've mentioned numerous times, an organization such as, say Atheists United Relief Fund at any scene of human suffering, have you? Perhaps I've just been careless and overlooked it among all the other help being offered... at any rate, I'll back up to the nearest wall and await the onslaught...
One has to look no further, as an example, to the literally earth-shaking (no pun intended) discovery of the Big Bang Theory to understand the implications of a universe with a beginning to cherished scientific beliefs held prior to it's revelation only within the last 25 years or so.
Additionally, no archaeological discoveries have ever contradicted evidence within Scripture. To be sure, this isn't to say that all of Scripture, or even a majority has been confirmed, but the evidence mounts to the veracity of the historical evidence contained therein... citations at your request...
It's also true that the msjority of humanitarian efforts, such as natural disaster relief, hospitals, schools in 3rd world countries, and other equally selfless endeavors are the work of Judaeo/Christian organizations and ideals. I have yet to see, as I've mentioned numerous times, an organization such as, say Atheists United Relief Fund at any scene of human suffering, have you? Perhaps I've just been careless and overlooked it among all the other help being offered... at any rate, I'll back up to the nearest wall and await the onslaught...
Believing in a religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc is all in the mind. It's a psychology kind of thing. When we believe or believe we have God to talk to in times of distress, it gives us the ultimate peace of mind. Whether God existed long, long, long time ago we would never know. It is all passed down from generation to generation the stories on the might of God. As long as we have faith and confidence in ourselves, I'm sure we could do just about anything. As for me, probably I only believe in proof of life. No offence.
What really annoys me is that believers don't all believe the same things. They seem to pick and choose which bits of the Bible are literal and which bits are metaphors.
What if they've picked the wrong bits to believe in?
I read something the other day where someone said that NONE of the Bible was meant to be taken as literal fact.
It's no wonder Chrisitianity, at least in the UK, is on the decline. It just doesn't stand up to logic, reason and just plain old common sense.
And Clanad, lack of evidence to disprove the existence of God is not proof that He does.
I believe the Universe was created by a giant electric space goat called Clive. Prove to me it wasn't. You can't? So it must be true.
What if they've picked the wrong bits to believe in?
I read something the other day where someone said that NONE of the Bible was meant to be taken as literal fact.
It's no wonder Chrisitianity, at least in the UK, is on the decline. It just doesn't stand up to logic, reason and just plain old common sense.
And Clanad, lack of evidence to disprove the existence of God is not proof that He does.
I believe the Universe was created by a giant electric space goat called Clive. Prove to me it wasn't. You can't? So it must be true.
As Clanad mentioned, this �Religion vs. Science� question is asked on a regular basis on AB. Generally, I don�t get involved because I admit that I don�t know enough to make in-depth arguments, but I do enjoy reading these discussions on AB because there are many people on AB who do appear to have done their homework. Usually the argument (in other venues besides AB) is just an exchange of �is so � is not� statements by fundamentalists on both sides. Yes � fundamentalist evolutionists. I think most people who �believe� in evolution are exactly that �fundamentalists. We learn about evolution in school as if it is fact, and at that level, evolution does seem to make a lot of sense and is a very elegant explanation of what we observe. So we �believe� in evolution and assume that all other theories are plain wrong. In reality, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, the theory of evolution as it stands may not sufficiently explain all our observations, and therefore it is perfectly valid to look at other possible explanations. I must say that I am always impressed with Clanad�s well thought out and informed arguments. The main problem I usually have with most creationists (btw, I am not calling Clanad a creationist.) is that they already assume they have the answer and they make the data fit their explanation, rather than the other way around. Although, the same may be said of fundamentalist evolutionists also.
To answer your question, because religion is based on faith, and not scientific enquiry, the vast majority of Christians will never admit that their beliefs are wrong, but as stated by Clanad, many (not all) of their beliefs have not necessarily been proven wrong either.
To answer your question, because religion is based on faith, and not scientific enquiry, the vast majority of Christians will never admit that their beliefs are wrong, but as stated by Clanad, many (not all) of their beliefs have not necessarily been proven wrong either.
I'm an athiest. I've given money to faith-led humanitarian efforts and would do so again. So, is that aid that gets delivered as a result of my charity donations Judeo-Christian aid, or athiest aid? Or perhaps this is a very stupid argument and it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter?
Tim Gorski, a Texan Pastor, writes a sensible article discussing the 'Only Judeo-Christians give charity' line. It's called 'Concerning Christian Charity', should you wish to Google it. In it he points out a number of problems in the argument, not least of which is it's holier than thou tone.
Personally I only have eyes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Praise his Noodly Appendage.
Tim Gorski, a Texan Pastor, writes a sensible article discussing the 'Only Judeo-Christians give charity' line. It's called 'Concerning Christian Charity', should you wish to Google it. In it he points out a number of problems in the argument, not least of which is it's holier than thou tone.
Personally I only have eyes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Praise his Noodly Appendage.
Clanad / Newtron
Science has nothing to say about religion and this makes the argument rather one-sided. You both bring up good examples of where science has nothing to say about religion and then proceed to accuse science - which is in-fact not a single field of discipline - of not cutting muster in some religious context. In turn:
To SCIENTISTS being rocked by the SCIENTIFIC discovery and development of the big bang theory. Scientists discover something new and interesting - i.e. do their jobs - and develop new theories about the early universe. What on earth has that got to do say about judaeo/christian religion?
Of fundamentalism in terms of evolution theory! The reason evolution is taught as though it is fact is because nobody has come up with an alternative solution that fits the evidence. For all practical purposes evolution theory is fact Creationism is an alternative view, sure enough, but it is not scientific. There are no scientific rivals to evolution theory. Furthermore, creationists come in many varieties all speaking the absolute truth as they see it. Most of them are by definition wrong. You can't sort that out scientifically. Is the earth 6000 years old as many creationists believe? is that an acceptable theory? Because that is what many people believe who drive the political agenda to get creationism into the science classroom.
cont...
.
Science has nothing to say about religion and this makes the argument rather one-sided. You both bring up good examples of where science has nothing to say about religion and then proceed to accuse science - which is in-fact not a single field of discipline - of not cutting muster in some religious context. In turn:
To SCIENTISTS being rocked by the SCIENTIFIC discovery and development of the big bang theory. Scientists discover something new and interesting - i.e. do their jobs - and develop new theories about the early universe. What on earth has that got to do say about judaeo/christian religion?
Of fundamentalism in terms of evolution theory! The reason evolution is taught as though it is fact is because nobody has come up with an alternative solution that fits the evidence. For all practical purposes evolution theory is fact Creationism is an alternative view, sure enough, but it is not scientific. There are no scientific rivals to evolution theory. Furthermore, creationists come in many varieties all speaking the absolute truth as they see it. Most of them are by definition wrong. You can't sort that out scientifically. Is the earth 6000 years old as many creationists believe? is that an acceptable theory? Because that is what many people believe who drive the political agenda to get creationism into the science classroom.
cont...
.
Were Copernicus and Galileo wrong to express their "beliefs" that the sun and not the earth are at the centre of the solar system or did they have good scientific evidence that they were correct? They could not be certain. Were they heliocentric fundamentalists?
Yes, christian charities do a lot of good work and many christians and muslims are good peaceful people. I, like Waldo, help to fund christian aid effort and I am an atheist. I am unlikely to kill someone in the name of my god, blow up an abortion clinic, become a suicide bomber or fight a holy war. I do not condemn gays or believe that Aids is a plague from god rather than a disease brought on from the HIV virus. I encourage people to use birth control, believe people should live together peacefully and don't deny the holocaust.
NONE OF WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE
Yes, christian charities do a lot of good work and many christians and muslims are good peaceful people. I, like Waldo, help to fund christian aid effort and I am an atheist. I am unlikely to kill someone in the name of my god, blow up an abortion clinic, become a suicide bomber or fight a holy war. I do not condemn gays or believe that Aids is a plague from god rather than a disease brought on from the HIV virus. I encourage people to use birth control, believe people should live together peacefully and don't deny the holocaust.
NONE OF WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE
Hi dawkins, I agree with what you say. I am an athiest also. I was just trying to point out that there are many people who are so convinced that evolution is absolutely correct and refuse to even think about an alternative model, even though they are really just taking someone elses word for it on faith, just as one has faith in his/her religion. They take their high school teacher's word for it and never look into the finer details for themselves, but yet they make very bold statements by stating supposed absol,ute truths about evolution. I was actually complimenting people on AB such as yourself on actually doing some research on the subject and not being fundamentalists. Having a background in geology, I feel like I have have a slightly above average understanding of evolution, but I still don't feel that I can argue about the finer details with many people here on AB.
I also suggested that science has proven some religious beliefs wrong (but not all).
I also suggested that science has proven some religious beliefs wrong (but not all).
Fair enough Newtron.
The problem as I see it is that religion is supposed to inform every aspect of a believers life including, in many cases, promoting their beliefs to nonbelievers. The upshot of this is that many religious groups specifically aim to enforce their beliefs onto others ( i.e. the wedge strategy ). Science (positivism) only concerns itself with observable and explainable phenomena. Science does not concern itself with the metaphysical.. I am not suggesting that there is no speculation within science but it is codified to favour evidence over belief. Scientists do not go into churches and demand that they preach evolution.
The problem as I see it is that religion is supposed to inform every aspect of a believers life including, in many cases, promoting their beliefs to nonbelievers. The upshot of this is that many religious groups specifically aim to enforce their beliefs onto others ( i.e. the wedge strategy ). Science (positivism) only concerns itself with observable and explainable phenomena. Science does not concern itself with the metaphysical.. I am not suggesting that there is no speculation within science but it is codified to favour evidence over belief. Scientists do not go into churches and demand that they preach evolution.
I agree dawkins. Although there are many fundamentalists in the scientific community. Have you read The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson? It's an interesting read. He talks about fundamentalism versus agnosticism. He lists hundreds of reports of weird happenings all over the world throughout history, from frogs falling from the sky to spontaneous combustion. (Some of these occurences are reported in respectable journals such as Scientific American) Most scientists would discount all these occurences as haoxes or mass hallucinations. Mr. Wilson points out that when someone makes an absolute statement to the effect that something is absolutely impossible because it defies the laws of physics, he implies that he knows all the laws of physics. I think you would agree that there is more that we don't know about our world than we do know.
Also, when a particular theory such as evolution is accepted in the scientific community, it does become almost a like a belief. I don't think this is nessecarily a bad thing though. It just means that when another model comes along that better explains observations, it must withstand extreme scrutiny before it is can even be considered over the accepted model.
Also, when a particular theory such as evolution is accepted in the scientific community, it does become almost a like a belief. I don't think this is nessecarily a bad thing though. It just means that when another model comes along that better explains observations, it must withstand extreme scrutiny before it is can even be considered over the accepted model.
Newtron
Its interesting that you mention Robert Winston because i'm going to see him and Richard Dawkings give a talk about science and religion. I'll be interested in what he has to say.
I have difficulty with your use of fundamentalism and particularly "fundamentalism v's agnosticism". By fundamentalism do you mean adherence to fundamental principles? If so, many christians would be happy to call themselves fundamentalists and science is based on fundamental principles so no problem there. I think you mean blind faith. Obviously that is a requirement of religion but would be an undesirable characteristic for a scientist.
It is not surprising that frogs falling from the sky and spontaneous combustion are reported in respectable scientific journals because they are real occurrences with very down to earth explanations which have been tested scientifically. Claims regarding ESP, clairvoyance, dowsing, etc. have also been thoroughly tested and have remained unproven. There are however many established and parsimonious explanations as to what occurs between a medium and client or when people dowse. I also think there are good reasons why belief systems are regional by nature.
Ultimately I believe the debate boils down to understanding. Why we no longer burn witches or perform exorcisms (for the most part) is because we have a better understanding of mental illness. If we have reached the stage where many people reject a supernatural explanation by default and look for a rational explanation instead then that is surely a good thing.
Its interesting that you mention Robert Winston because i'm going to see him and Richard Dawkings give a talk about science and religion. I'll be interested in what he has to say.
I have difficulty with your use of fundamentalism and particularly "fundamentalism v's agnosticism". By fundamentalism do you mean adherence to fundamental principles? If so, many christians would be happy to call themselves fundamentalists and science is based on fundamental principles so no problem there. I think you mean blind faith. Obviously that is a requirement of religion but would be an undesirable characteristic for a scientist.
It is not surprising that frogs falling from the sky and spontaneous combustion are reported in respectable scientific journals because they are real occurrences with very down to earth explanations which have been tested scientifically. Claims regarding ESP, clairvoyance, dowsing, etc. have also been thoroughly tested and have remained unproven. There are however many established and parsimonious explanations as to what occurs between a medium and client or when people dowse. I also think there are good reasons why belief systems are regional by nature.
Ultimately I believe the debate boils down to understanding. Why we no longer burn witches or perform exorcisms (for the most part) is because we have a better understanding of mental illness. If we have reached the stage where many people reject a supernatural explanation by default and look for a rational explanation instead then that is surely a good thing.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.