Why should we choose Religion over Science?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by danielsil18
Question for everyone, a simple question.

Why do you think or believe that we should all choose to accept religion over science.

edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. Science discovers and documents facts, like how every living thing is made of DNA. Religion just guesses that a magician made the DNA.

Exactly, both can't be right.

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

Religion is the institution of spirituality, likewise science is the institution of knowledge.

One may be spiritual without religion or knowledgeable without science, but these institutions can certainly help to advance these qualities in an individual

I think that if religion was really an institution of spirituality, then it wouldn't have any problems with science.

If religion was only spiritual, then Christians wouldn't be rejecting tons of scientific evidence.

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by danielsil18
Question for everyone, a simple question.

Why do you think or believe that we should all choose to accept religion over science.

edit on 5-7-2013 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. Science discovers and documents facts, like how every living thing is made of DNA. Religion just guesses that a magician made the DNA.

Exactly, both can't be right.

Why not?

Science is about the "how", religion (and philosophy) are about the "why". They are not necessarily ever in conflict -- point to anything in the Catholic Catechism which is in conflict with proven scientific knowledge.

There has been a tendency on the part of science lately to intrude on areas where it isn't qualified to speak, particularly in matters of philosophy (witness Lawrence Krauss' irrational rants against David Albert calling him out on the errors in A Universe from Nothing,) which just seems to be getting worse as time goes by.

This might be helpful: The Folly of Scientism

reply to post by adjensen

Why not?

There are many.

One simple example: Evolution.

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why not?

There are many.

One simple example: Evolution.

I am an orthodox Christian of the Roman Catholic variety, and I believe in evolution and don't see any conflict there.

I think that you are confusing a small segment of Christianity with all of Christianity.

This may help: Evolution and the Catholic Church: Are They in Conflict?

Originally posted by danielsil18

I wanted to put 2, 3, and 4 together to ask you this since you say that the Bible shouldn't be taken literaly because it was created to teach people lessons about humanity.

Some parts of the bible may be based on historical fact, but a lot of it was written several hundred years after the fact, but as I said its purpose is not to relay exactly what actually happened to the last detail.

Should we recommend Christians to also read "The little Engine that Could". Since that book would also teach them something valuable in life, which is hard work and optimism.

I wouldn't recommend a children's book in place of an ancient text because it would sound very condescending, as well the number and depth of the lessons in the Bible greatly surpasses "The Little Engine that Could."

But I do think that anyone could find valuable messages in any book, or any form of media for that matter. One should not limit themselves to one packaged set of ideas, in my opinion.

My point is that many Christians won't accept science because their religion doesn't agree with science.

Well, that's their problem, isn't it?

reply to post by danielsil18


Wait, so are you telling me that because you're religious, you have to believe everything associated with that religion, and nothing within the book that religious group follows can be disregarded? Why is that? Does that make the person any less religious? Did you know that there are a lot of missing texts that never made it into the Bible? The Bible is ultimately comprised of what was selected to be in it. I'll correct you on "In Christianity the Bible is basically proof that God exists." there is no proof God exists, they're just different stories that talk about, or mention him. The Bible is a book derived from Judaism (the Old Testament), with most of the "newer" texts written by Jews (the New Testament). The Bible conflicts with itself a lot, without science, because there are so many different authors and different times in which the stories were penned. Does that suddenly make this a discussion about the Bible not being able to coexist with the Bible because of contradictions between texts.

Now Catholicism is suddenly it's own religion, Christianity derived from Judaism and the rest of the Christian texts were written by Jews, yet it's left out of your little list, and there's an exception to which religion can coexist with science. You just did a 180 and destroyed your thread and whatever point your were trying to make.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why not?

There are many.

One simple example: Evolution.

I am an orthodox Christian of the Roman Catholic variety, and I believe in evolution and don't see any conflict there.

I think that you are confusing a small segment of Christianity with all of Christianity.

This may help: Evolution and the Catholic Church: Are They in Conflict?

I see...

So you believe that we all have a common ancestor?

reply to post by Glass

Well, that's their problem, isn't it?

Then I'm guessing that Christians are separated.

Some take it too seriously and reject science, while others don't.

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why not?

There are many.

One simple example: Evolution.

I am an orthodox Christian of the Roman Catholic variety, and I believe in evolution and don't see any conflict there.

I think that you are confusing a small segment of Christianity with all of Christianity.

This may help: Evolution and the Catholic Church: Are They in Conflict?

I see...

So you believe that we all have a common ancestor?

If you are referring to Mitochondrial Eve, I have no problem with that theory. Probably not named "Eve", though, lol.

reply to post by FidelityMusic

Wait, so are you telling me that because you're religious, you have to believe everything associated with that religion, and nothing within the book that religious group follows can be disregarded? Why is that?

Isn't that the point of following a religion? Or they can cherry pick what they want to follow?

I'll correct you on "In Christianity the Bible is basically proof that God exists." there is no proof God exists,

I agree on you with that, many Christians won't.

and there's an exception to which religion can coexist with science. You just did a 180 and destroyed your thread and whatever point your were trying to make.

I should have made the OP more clear, that's my mistake.

Also mentioning religion was a mistake since it's too broad since there are a lot of religions.

But I'm interested in what you were mentioning about the morals of religion.

reply to post by adjensen

If you are referring to Mitochondrial Eve, I have no problem with that theory. Probably not named "Eve", though, lol.

I was referring to the Theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you are referring to Mitochondrial Eve, I have no problem with that theory. Probably not named "Eve", though, lol.

I was referring to the Theory of Evolution.

I already told you that both I, and the Catholic Church (as well as many other denominations,) see no incompatibility between that theory and what we believe theologically.

If you're looking for an argument, you need to find some young Earth creationists. Good luck with that, though -- though I completely disagree with them, the core of their argument (that an omnipotent God created reality, with everything "in place", including fossils, 6000 years ago,) is impossible to disprove. Irrational? Yes. Disprovable? No.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you are referring to Mitochondrial Eve, I have no problem with that theory. Probably not named "Eve", though, lol.

I was referring to the Theory of Evolution.

I already told you that both I, and the Catholic Church (as well as many other denominations,) see no incompatibility between that theory and what we believe theologically.

If you're looking for an argument, you need to find some young Earth creationists. Good luck with that, though -- though I completely disagree with them, the core of their argument (that an omnipotent God created reality, with everything "in place", including fossils, 6000 years ago,) is impossible to disprove. Irrational? Yes. Disprovable? No.

Not looking for an argument, just curious because there are not many Catholics that accept Evolution.

I don't have much faith in either. Seems that the almighty buck and beliefs of the time steer both of them. I do have faith in Mother earth though,and a lot of respect for god and his crew.

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by adjensen
If you're looking for an argument, you need to find some young Earth creationists. Good luck with that, though -- though I completely disagree with them, the core of their argument (that an omnipotent God created reality, with everything "in place", including fossils, 6000 years ago,) is impossible to disprove. Irrational? Yes. Disprovable? No.

Not looking for an argument, just curious because there are not many Catholics that accept Evolution.

Well, it's from a study that's fifteen years old (though I'd expect the numbers to be higher today), but this:

(Source)

shows that the largest church in the United States, the Roman Catholic Church, had about 30 million "evolution believing" members, so, again, I think that your perception does not reflect reality.

Originally posted by danielsil18

Both can't coexist though.

Religion and Science don't agree with each other.

That needn't be the case, depends on the POV and how the Wisdom of the Ages is interpreted and understood.

In fact, much of the teachings of all the religious and spiritual traditions, and what is being discovered by science, are beginning to intersect.

Take this for example.

Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field.

reply to post by FidelityMusic

Originally posted by FidelityMusic

Right and wrong, negative and positive, life and death, yin and yang. None of those agree with each other because they're opposites, yet they coexist in our reality.

It is one OR the other. You cannot be alive and dead at the same time. They do not coexist.

Why should we choose Religion over Science?

FYI, neither one will tell you the truth.

Religion AND Science are both all about HIDING the truth.

Science has JUST as much credibility as what you see in Religion.

They are BOTH being used as mind control tools.

With respect to its great contributions to society, I think it is important to make a case that science is really affecting society more like a religion now than a field of study or a resource base of useful information. Many everyday people do not understand it at all and accept ALL its teachings on faith.

Unfortunately some scientists and academic professionals are not so noble and have perpetrated deliberate frauds and cover-ups of important discoveries.

Modern Scientific beliefs are based upon a leap of faith in the big bang theory. It has become a belief system based on faith and therefore another form of religion. Scientists, like priests can explain their beliefs but the everyday people accept it all on faith. Scientists and doctors are the priests of this new religion, getting angry and crying "heresy" when anyone respectfully disagrees with them.

Has Science become a Religion

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

"Historical, religious and political truths have been withheld from the general public in order to perpetuate armed conflict," he continues. "Similarly if the presently suppressed technology were to be made commercially available, disease, famine and environmental pollution virtually would become eradicated."

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

With the control of science in their hands, and the discouragement of seeking new findings they took it a step further. Next, the Robber Baron flunkies of the Illuminati used their ill-gotten gains, under the guise of philanthropy, to establish “Foundations” and “Societies” such as the National Geographical Society and the

Smithsonian Institute “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men,” but in reality to help cover-up and hide away anything that doesn’t fit the accepted theories."

Secret Societies - Who Controls Knowledge?

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Why do we have to anyways? Theology and Science go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned.

They can't.

Religion says one thing, while Science says another thing.

Let's use Christianity as an example. What would happen to Christianity if the story of Adam and Eve was wrong?

Nothing. It wouldn't change the cross at Calvary. Adam didn't die for us, Jesus did.

And I don't put much stock into things that change constantly like the Sciences. However I do live learning about them they are fascinating to me.

I just know soon that information will be obsolete when a new study or theory comes along. But I still love it.