Science and Religion are Not Compatible

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Creationists fail to accept that God may have altered the facts.

god may have done a lot of things.

god deliberately altering the world, falsifying creation, seems at odds with the commandments. god commanding "thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour" while falsifying his own creation to set a trap for mankind seems fairly hypocritical. in doing so, doesn't he bear false witness against himself.

you have an interesting idea, fine, but it doesn't really fit in with what the bible, or jesus for that matter, teaches us about god. i wouldn't try to tell you what to believe but i can't see the wisdom in your interpretation.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Creationists fail to accept that God may have altered the facts.

god may have done a lot of things.

god deliberately altering the world, falsifying creation, seems at odds with the commandments. god commanding "thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour" while falsifying his own creation to set a trap for mankind seems fairly hypocritical. in doing so, doesn't he bear false witness against himself.

you have an interesting idea, fine, but it doesn't really fit in with what the bible, or jesus for that matter, teaches us about god. i wouldn't try to tell you what to believe but i can't see the wisdom in your interpretation.

It is consistent with the last days, wherein God said he would send them a strong delusion:

2 Thess 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There have to be choices. Without choices, there can be no demonstration of our love for God.

We are already damned, because we are sinful and unrighteous. It is only through the blood of Jesus that we are redeemed from our damnation. Damned means we have a mark against us for something. You could be damned for not believing, not being kind, not being merciful, etc. In the case above, they are damned for not believing the truth, but following the deception. God allows deceptions to enter your life. He is testing you to see where you will give your love and loyalty. Here is another example:

Deut 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Don't worry about it... you're still going to heaven. He's just testing you now so He can show you later that you couldn't do it, either.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Jim Scott]

What is of the spirit is spirit, and what is of the flesh is flesh.

As such, each is in their own domain, and there is no reason why you must accept either 1 or the other. Each has their place, and to neglect either of them is to be foolish.

The universe/creation is based on logic. When you have logic, you get laws. When you get laws, then you get something which is repeatable over and over. It is action and reaction. This is for the realm of science. It is best suited for this realm of things and does a good job.

However, science breaks down when it gets to consciousness and the questions of life. As consciousness, free will, and real intelligence is not a part of the universe itself, it can not handle them. There is no room in science for choice. If it is not repeatable in a lab over and over, then science rejects it.

Science has basically completely ignored consciousness because of this. This is the realm of "religion", or more appropriately in it's purest form: Philosophy.

Consciousness creates logic, logic can not create consciousness. Action and reaction can not create free will. It is because of this that programmed intelligence is called "artificial", because all it can ever do is follow the logic given to it by the program.

Your body itself is of the universe, and so it also falls into the realm of science.

Science = best to understand the universe and creation itself.
Philosophy = best to understand consciousness(soul), and what it means to be an observer.

To not understand these basic principles is to not understand it takes a scientist in order to have science. No scientist to understand and observe it = no science.

The "war" between the 2 is pure ignorance on both sides.


[edit on 6/29/2009 by badmedia]

Furthermore, on the topic of creation.

Genesis starts out:

In the beginning there was the word. What is that telling you? It's telling you that the universe itself is a program. When we write programs, we use "words" to create them. More specifically, those words are logic.

From the logic you get the laws of the universe/creation. This is again what programs do, they create laws that are followed.

However, that program does not come to "life" until it is observed. Write a program and it's just a bunch of patterns and such until someone actually watches it and it's output. It doesn't come to life anymore than the AI in a video game knowing it's AI.

And so, it then goes on: And the spirit of god filled the creation and brought it to life.

So, consciousness enters into the creation/program and brings it to life. It becomes observed and experienced. It is the part of god within you that is that spirit. It is what gives you a soul and separates you from a robot. Because of it, you are able to ask what it means to "be", you can be aware that you are aware. From this comes understanding, free will and choice.

What is of the flesh is flesh, and what is of the spirit is spirit. Know thyself.

There is nothing wrong with evolution. Things evolve, it's a fact. It's a question of how they evolve. There is a consciousness behind it. NOTHING IS RANDOM. It is impossible for logic to create a truly random number. While computers generate random numbers that suit our purpose, in reality they are completely predictable numbers.

All my programs evolve. If I write a program today called "monkey", you can bet that the program I write the next day "human" is going to carry alot of code that is the same. Because it is pointless to rewrite the same thing over and over.

DNA is a config file. Cells are biological nanobots. So even if the DNA changes and creates more advanced beings, it's not changing the core "programming" under it. Or in programming, it would be a .dll file. Dynamic Link Library. Or drivers. The same code used among many programs on a PC or OS.

Changing the size of something is a simple variable. The change in code from something being 10 feet tall or 100 feet tall is a simple variable. And this is what genetics finds in DNA as well. A color change, again the same thing.

If you can show the logic that creates consciousness, or even just the "chemicals" and such if you believe it's "of this universe"(both are the same thing honestly), then I can make your richer than Bill Gates. It would be the biggest discovery in the history of mankind. Never going to happen though, because it can't be done.

of course they are compatible, it's entirely relative though. It depends upon your definition of religion and the type of religion your refer to.

Many of the traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, etc. with all of the hokey pokey that has been created over the years are not, as you said, compatible. I could find ways to make them compatible with science, but it would be somewhat flimsy and the fundamentalists of these religions are too narrow minded to be able to accept this flimsy connection anyway.

However, if you were raised in a household of open ended belief and free will (thank God) then you can have a very simple and essentially intrinsic connection between the two. Many of my understandings of MY religion are derived from science. Some from lore. Some from religions themselves. Some from life experience.

That brings up a whole multitude of other issues, including your relationship with God and your religion, rather than being a minion of a cult that then worships God together. Hypothetically speaking, if all of the people died in your respective religion, including your "messengers" like Popes etc...then what would this individual think/do? Would they even be religious anymore? Believe in God?

If i was the last person on Earth, my faith would still be hold water in my eyes.

Of course, this isn't to discredit others with similar views to my own. The more the merrier.

PS: DNA is a double helix, electromagnetic energy is a double helix. Image of God? Hah.

reply to post by badmedia


I see your point in looking at the creation as a program. It follows laws. Of course, that works for us because we need to have some regularity in our existence. We probably don't notice the chaos because it would be too disturbing. However, that being said, outside of our existence and understanding and observation it may be total chaos where God exists. Nice of Him to make it so beautiful for us here.

Originally posted by Ex Plures-Unus
of course they are compatible, it's entirely relative though. It depends upon your definition of religion and the type of religion your refer to.

Many of the traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, etc. with all of the hokey pokey that has been created over the years are not, as you said, compatible.[snip]

Christianity is 100% compatible with other religions as well as science.

For example, other religions... God created us in a fallen state, in a confusing and deceptive world. Since He loves us, and said He saves all of us, it makes sense that those deceptions will not prevent us from attaining heaven. In fact, He paid the price for all men, including those of other religions. To make sure we know, He said so, and also said that they will be accountable for the law that they do have, whether it is from Jesus or not. Obedience to the laws and conscience that we each have in our lifespace will affect how God rewards us in heaven, but has no bearing on our redemption and salvation. We are all saved and have eternal life with Him.

Of course, I have already demonstrated how science and Christianity are 100% compatible in this thread.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Jim Scott]

Originally posted by Jim Scott
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
*snip*
It is only through the blood of Jesus that we are redeemed from our damnation.
*snip*
for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

we're at the heart of it here, the blood of jesus? a deceitful god? a jealous god? a testing god? this isn't the god jesus described.

before his "death", jesus spoke of a loving father and redemption from sin through humbleness, acceptance of one another, good works and rejection of worldly goods.

you can quote later or earlier scripture all day long to try to show your beliefs have some sort of biblical basis, but the bible is a big book and you'll always be able to find something in there you can twist into your own meaning.

what you can't do is find anything jesus said that lends one shred of credibility to your theory.

science and religion aren't compatible in people like you, you decide what truth you want and then look for justification for believing it. this doesn't fit well with anything except the promotion of one brand of ignorance over another.

[edit on 30/6/09 by pieman]

Not only are they compatible but in my eyes they are the same thing or extremely close anyway.

That's not to say all science is wrong but an awful lot of it is theory with scientists completely convinced they must be correct which to me is faith.

Best example I can think of is the invention of dark matter and dark energy just to keep the big bang theory afloat. Not to say they are wrong but it is an awful big leap of faith based on the flimsiest of speculations and a desire to keep to their model.

It's human nature to want knowledge whether it comes from a religious book or a science book it boils down to the same thing.

I personally believe as Humans we will never know the universes secrets and I wouldn't be to surprised if we were completely wrong about a lot of things but it's our nature to keep seeking and grasping anything we feel makes sense.

Science is a religion. It is a belief system no different from any other...

Late to the party so these are just my thoughts on the OP.

My most general point is that this is a clash of two dogmas. This is NOT, repeat NOT, about "science v. religion." There's a really obvious signpost:

Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, has recently published a book called Why Evolution is True

As soon as someone makes a statement like that they've stopped being a scientist. Scientific theories, or hypotheses, cannot be proved, they can only be disproved.

A theory is useful only so far as it handles a lot of data and allows people to make predictions. The turf wars start when the set of data a theory should handle is defined.

Darwin said himself that his theory stood or fell by the fossil record. His acolytes have been trying to plug holes in the fossil record ever since and have become ever more dogmatic and boneheaded in their defence of a theory that was all too clearly a product of a mechanist mindset steeped in Victorian morality. It was a good stab and a useful step but the business of speciation is simply not addressed.

Only last night I was watching a documentary in which the narrator was talking about dragonflies. He said what a remarkable feat of evolution they were, particularly as the earlierst dragonflies were huge and appeared seemingly out of nowhere in I forget which period. He even said, "we have no idea how this happened".

Dragonflies, huge ones, appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record and yet people are quite happy to say they evolved, even though we have no evidence that this happened.

This glaring inconsistency is all too typical. Everyone thinks that Darwinism isn't just a theory, it's true. And that inspires efforts to bin awkward data "because it doesn't fit with the fossil record." Once you've decided to judge data ideologically, it becomes easy to come up with reasons for rejecting the inconvenient stuff.

There is quite a lot of inconvenient data that pokes glaring holes in Darwinism, but one of the characteristics of the debate is its polarization, typically between hard core Darwinists like Dawkins and Christian fundamentalists. That allows the former to write off data simply because the Christians came up with it.

It also means that arguing against Darwinism means you must be a Christian fundamentalist. And here we go...

The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.

NOT ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE INTERPRET THEIR TEXTS LITERALLY.

There have been plenty of scientists who were and are religious. There are many ways of interpreting religious texts. You can look at them as informative parables, you can look at them as creation myths, you can look for hidden codes if you like. But only the truly dogmatic insist on their literal truth, just as the most fervent defenders of Darwinism are the most dogmatic.

The problem on both sides is the same. They're both dogmatic, and clinging to beliefs that it's hard to support rationally.

Originally posted by Rams59lb
Source Link: blogs.discovermagazine.com...

I've always believed Religion and Science were not a perfect marriage. Throughout my pursuit in higher education it was very clear that they don't mix, as a perosn who had attended church services and then would return to the lab at school things simply didn't make scence, when working on a project of a scientific value with a religious mind it simply caused everybody at the table to get slammed against a wall of distraction and confusion.

You (and whoever's preaching to the kids in those classes who'd been to church) are confusing a dogmatic mind with a religious mind. Religion is not just fundamentalist Christianity. The common thing about religions the world over is that they appeal to a sense of wonder and awe about the world. The word's Latin root means to re-connect: and a mystical view on this is that it allows the individual to reconnect with the universe, whether defined as such or personalised as a God. This is a personal experience and, surprise, most religions evolve a power structure which offers to mediate this experience in exchange for political/personal power over the individual seeker. Naturally this corrupt edifice cannot deliver on its promises, although genuine examples of "reconnection" cannot be completely excluded.

In sum, then, the word "religious" is being misapplied. The religious impulse is a different thing from the manifestation of what is basically a political struggle between two ideologically opposed camps.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by rich23]

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Christianity is 100% compatible with other religions as well as science.

If only the same could be said of all Christians.

[snip]
we're at the heart of it here, the blood of jesus? a deceitful god? a jealous god? a testing god? this isn't the god jesus described.
[snip]
what you can't do is find anything jesus said that lends one shred of credibility to your theory.
[snip]
[edit on 30/6/09 by pieman]

The blood of Jesus:

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

A jealous God:
Jealous, see Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, term 7065. Also means "zealous" as used in Numbers 25:11, 25:13. Definition of zealous: full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent. See:

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

John 14:He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

A deceitful God:

John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father

Matt 6:13 And lead us not into temptation,

John 16:5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? 6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.

A testing God:

Luke 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation [testing] fall away.

the only religion that will ever be compatible with science is a true one. That is simple, and science is fact, religion is belief.

Originally posted by unclekrabz
the only religion that will ever be compatible with science is a true one...

Amen

Religion is a faith based on the facts, if not it is a false religion. How can you base something on pure fiction and then call it the truth? Expecially when it comes to claiming it comes from the scriptures. This is what the scriptures has to say about it.


1 Timothy
4:1 But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, 4:2 through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;

6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine, and doesn’t consent to sound words, the words of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, 6:4 he is conceited, knowing nothing, but obsessed with arguments, disputes, and word battles, from which come envy, strife, insulting, evil suspicions, 6:5 constant friction of people of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. Withdraw yourself from such.

2 Timothy
3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

4:3 For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.

2 Peter
2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. 2:2 Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned. 2:3 In covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words: whose sentence now from of old doesn’t linger, and their destruction will not slumber.

2:17 These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. 2:18 For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; 2:19 promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him.



[edit on 1-7-2009 by The Riley Family]

I have to say something that everyone can agree on.

2:17 These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. 2:18 For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; 2:19 promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him.

This is good to keep in the back of your mind no matter what you believe in.

Originally posted by The Riley Family

Originally posted by unclekrabz
the only religion that will ever be compatible with science is a true one...

Amen

Religion is a faith based on the facts, if not it is a false religion. How can you base something on pure fiction and then call it the truth? Expecially when it comes to claiming it comes from the scriptures.

Of course, I have no idea what you mean here. Scientific facts claim the world is 4.5 billion years old. God said He made it in 6 days and put Adam in it on the 6th of those six days. And the evening and the morning were the first, second, etc. days. 24 hour days. Days with day and night, one of each on each day. If you believe in scientific fact, you cannot believe what God said, unless you accept that He made it aged.

How can you believe in a resurrection of a man who was stinking dead after four days? That is not scientifically possible. How can you believe that the Red Sea was a wall on their left and right, and they went through on dry ground? That's scientifically impossible. How can you believe there is a God? That's not provable scientifically. If you need science to establish the facts of your religion, you do not believe in the God of the Bible.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

This is what the scriptures has to say about it.
1 Timothy 4:1 But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, 4:2 through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;

6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine, and doesn’t consent to sound words, the words of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, 6:4 he is conceited, knowing nothing, but obsessed with arguments, disputes, and word battles, from which come envy, strife, insulting, evil suspicions, 6:5 constant friction of people of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. Withdraw yourself from such.

2 Timothy
3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

4:3 For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.

2 Peter
2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. 2:2 Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned. 2:3 In covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words: whose sentence now from of old doesn’t linger, and their destruction will not slumber.

2:17 These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. 2:18 For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; 2:19 promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by The Riley Family]

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 Thess 5:19 Quench not the Spirit. 20 Despise not prophesyings. 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 John 1:7 "the blood" here means "the death", not the actual blood. as in, "the freedom was won by the blood of free men" but regardless, these are johns thoughts, not the gospel, which was my point. interpritation of the facts destroys the message.

A jealous God:
jealous, as in not happy about you talking to other gods when you go to the bar to buy a drink. what is it now, if you can't evidence for it in the gospel you'll change the meaning of the word?

A deceitful God:

John 16:25 :a proverb is not a lie, it is clear that a proverb is a story to illustrate a point. a lie is a story that hides the facts. there is no deceit implied in a proverb.

Matt 6:13 :i assume the "lead" element is a reference to the good shepherd concept, and this entreaty is preceded by "give us our daily bread" and followed directly by "and deliver us from evil", clearly the requests are not intended to be taken literally but more in the sense that god lends a man the strength to do these things himself. do you believe they were meant as literal requests?

John 6:5 : that's johns opinion of what jesus' motivation was for asking a question. none of the other gospels mention this and two say the deciples asked the question. johns interpretation of the events is hardly proof of a deceitful god. his opinion is worth as much as mine or yours.

A testing God:

Luke 8:13 this does not say that god will tempt you, it just says you will be tempted. jesus himself was tempted, a mention of temptation or testing does not imply god will be the one testing you.

here again, in every case, you seem to require quotes be taken out of context or the meanings of words need to be changed or certain interpretations of the facts need to be included to make the teachings fit your beliefs.

this attitude is the main issue with both religion and science, if a view is formed to the point of dogmatic belief and the facts are then sought to prop up that belief then the truth of either is hidden.

religion and science are compatible, to echo rich23's sentiment, if only religious people and scientists were.

[edit on 2/7/09 by pieman]

[edit on 2/7/09 by pieman]

Reply to post by purplemer

Thank you! Finally someone calls Science what it really is. Another religion. Pure and simple. Sooooo , how many times has science proven science to be wrong. For some reason the word contradiction comes to mind.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

To me , Science and Religion are compatible.
It's just an attitude problem that creates a great divide.

Religion or the Bible explains how things began and Science explains what comes after in human terms.

Scientists explain the Science behind what God left behind, but will never know the original design no matter how long they live. They will never find the celestial version of the Rosetta Stones.

Too bad Scientists have to have the attitude that they do.
They aren't Gods, but think they are. They can hardly wait to find the holy grail of Scientific knowledge to do experiments and become God themselves.
Thats the problem. IMO

Their persuit seems more malevolent than benevolent, which is why I don't think they'll ever discover how it really all began. And with all the evil intent in the world right now, I don't see that as a bad thing.