Contrasts in Science and Religion

[Jaiket]

If your religion teaches something as fact, like the chronological appearance of organism on Earth in Genesis, and scientific findings are contradictory or unsupportive, how do you respond?

The global flood, the existence of Jesus, the existence of souls are other issues that could be discussed.

[Lecter]

This could mean one of the following.

1. We lack scientific data, we should research it more first before claiming it's scientific 'fact'.


2. The religion is simply wrong.

[elfishmoonfeather]

Many things cannot and will not ever be explained. For example, You can say that we evolved from other animals. Where did those animals come from? You can say the earth came from the Big Bang. But how did that even happen? Things will remain a mystery, which is where religion comes in. Religion are people's different answers to that question. We will have to wait until death to find out whether or not we had the right answer.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by elfishmoonfeather

Many things cannot and will not ever be explained.

That seems a bit cynical. Given what we've discovered so far, what reason is there to assume we'll suddenly stop at a dead end?

Originally Posted by elfishmoonfeather

Religion are people's different answers to that question.

Dawkins argument that science is not another religion, but that the religions are sciences - just very weak ones, comes to mind.

Why rely one on religious answers which are neither falsifiable or verifiable, cannot often be reproduced, lack supporting evidence and involve supernatural agents?

[Rolling_Stone]

To isolate a part of life and call it religion and another and call it science is to distort both and disintegrate life..."And this is just why the God of worship claims all allegiance or none."

“The experience of God-consciousness remains the same from generation to generation, but with each advancing epoch in human knowledge the philosophic concept and the theologic definitions of God must change. God-knowingness, religious consciousness, is a universe reality, but no matter how valid (real) religious experience is, it must be willing to subject itself to intelligent criticism and reasonable philosophic interpretation; it must not seek to be a thing apart in the totality of human experience.” (The URANTIA Book, P.69) The increasing animosity directed at believers in God, and most especially towards Christians, is in no small measure the result of religion’s failure to keep pace with the rapid expansion of knowledge.

[thalassa]

science is as objective as possible, based on observable data...

religion is mostly subjective, based on faith in the abstract...


I don't run into the mentioned problem very often since I am no longer Christian...

but when I do, I look at the evidence--and use the brain "God" and evolution gave me

religion is just as fallible as science...

both are made up by men...

(and as my hubby just pointed out that someone, somewhere will take that the wrong way---but yeah, women WOULD do it better )

correction---both are made up by MANKIND

[Rolling_Stone]

religion is mostly subjective, based on faith in the abstract

So reality ends where the skin begins?

[Rev. Rex]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

If your religion teaches something as fact, like the chronological appearance of organism on Earth in Genesis, and scientific findings are contradictory or unsupportive, how do you respond?

The global flood, the existence of Jesus, the existence of souls are other issues that could be discussed.

First, my religious belief is that the bible is not, and never has been a calendar. Most of it is presented in similes. So I have yet to find any contradiction to science and my beliefs.

As far as HAPPENINGS in the bible, I've not seen science repudiate any of the happenings, though they too are similes. For instance, there is a large amount of science data that supports a great flood, or at the very least some other very severe global catastrophe. I don't know of many people that don't believe the evidence that there was a very severe bottle neck 10,000 to 15,000 in the global gene pool. There is little science evidence that it didn't happened, though not everyone agrees that it was a flood that did it. It would have to be something severe, to drop the world population of a few million into the thousands. I can't say it was a flood. I do think that it is interesting that unrelated cultures, separated by time and distance, believed in a catastrophic flood. Even Mayan, American Indian, Incas, and other major cultures believed in it. Still, there is no proof one way or the other that there was a flood, or if there was some other event...meteor impact or whatever, that actually caused it.

Anyway, I love science, and I'm constantly trying to absorb more. Yet I've never seen anything that contradicts my religion. In fact, there are a lot of scientific principles that support it.

[scitsofreaky]

Originally Posted by Rev. Rex

I don't know of many people that don't believe the evidence that there was a very severe bottle neck 10,000 to 15,000 in the global gene pool.

I can't say I know of anyone that believes that 10-15k years ago there was a genetic bottle neck and that it was because there was only a small extended family. Populations that small are generally thought of as functionally extinct, especially since half of the reproductive memebers were so closely related. I'm also not aware of a genetic bottle neck in every species that dates back 10-15k years.

I do think that it is interesting that unrelated cultures, separated by time and distance, believed in a catastrophic flood.

Well, considering that catastrophic floods at the local level happen all over the world it doesn't seem very coincidental. It seems entirely logical. Most (if not all) of these societies were familiar with just a small fraction of the world, so a localized flood would be "global" as far as they knew.

Originally Posted by elfishmoonfeather

Things will remain a mystery, which is where religion comes in. Religion are people's different answers to that question. We will have to wait until death to find out whether or not we had the right answer.

So basically religion is a place holder until we find out how it (whatever "it" may be) actually happened? Why not just acknowledge that we don't know?

[Fahad1]

Religion and Science both are different from each other but it doesnot mean
that both contradict with each other, it also depends which religion you are talking about. I am pretty sure that non-Abrahamic Religions might be in conflict with Modern Science.

As far as Qur'an is concerned, most of the references given in the Qur'anic verses point to the recently discovered scientific facts but it doesnot mean that Qur'an is a book of Science, Qur'an actually is a book of guidance and signs.

I hope this helps,