Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Kurieuo wrote:There was a thread which was opened as a loaded question: Why is there a conflict between religion and science? Although the original poster didn't really believe there was a conflict.
Loaded Question: or "complex question fallacy" is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)
I can see evident contradictions between some religions, like Hinduism which kind of prides itself on contradictions with relative truth rather than any real objective truth. Christianity however, has always had a foundation in reason. You just need to look at its rich heritage of thinkers.
Furthermore, Judaism and maybe even Islam as I see it aren't incompatible with science either. I mean science broken down is simply looking to nature, and all these theistic religions haven't had much issue with doing that over years. Looking to nature and natural revelation was heavily drawn from in each.
So then, when did it ever become granted in society that religion, ALL religion, is incompatible with science? You know, I'm not one who likes to call my beliefs religious, and I don't see them in that context. I merely believe what I see as sensible. Nonetheless, people today often just accept religion and science are incompatible without blinking, but this to me seems rather suspicious. Like they've swallowed rhetoric that is actually fallacious.
But isn't a virgin birth, rising from the dead, and various other miracles in the Bible incompatible with science?
Ken
No, they are not.
Add to that the simple fact that right now, a virgin CAN give birth.
Science comments on what it can observe directly via observation OR by remaining evidence.
At best, what science can say is that " based on what we know NOW, we can't explain how a person can be resurrected or who event "A" happened".
Kurieuo wrote:There was a thread which was opened as a loaded question: Why is there a conflict between religion and science? Although the original poster didn't really believe there was a conflict.
Loaded Question: or "complex question fallacy" is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)
I can see evident contradictions between some religions, like Hinduism which kind of prides itself on contradictions with relative truth rather than any real objective truth. Christianity however, has always had a foundation in reason. You just need to look at its rich heritage of thinkers.
Furthermore, Judaism and maybe even Islam as I see it aren't incompatible with science either. I mean science broken down is simply looking to nature, and all these theistic religions haven't had much issue with doing that over years. Looking to nature and natural revelation was heavily drawn from in each.
So then, when did it ever become granted in society that religion, ALL religion, is incompatible with science? You know, I'm not one who likes to call my beliefs religious, and I don't see them in that context. I merely believe what I see as sensible. Nonetheless, people today often just accept religion and science are incompatible without blinking, but this to me seems rather suspicious. Like they've swallowed rhetoric that is actually fallacious.
But isn't a virgin birth, rising from the dead, and various other miracles in the Bible incompatible with science?
Ken
PaulSacramento wrote: No, they are not.
Add to that the simple fact that right now, a virgin CAN give birth.
Yes today via artificial insemination, a woman can get pregnant without having sex, but that was not an option 2,500 years ago.
PaulSacramento wrote: Science comments on what it can observe directly via observation OR by remaining evidence.
At best, what science can say is that " based on what we know NOW, we can't explain how a person can be resurrected or who event "A" happened".
But science does not say that because they are not in the business of disproving every false claim that comes down the pike. If I claimed a woman could get pregnant by swallowing a watermelon seed, to say this is compatible with science simply because science does not refute it would be ridicules wouldn’t it?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
PaulSacramento wrote: No, they are not.
Add to that the simple fact that right now, a virgin CAN give birth.
Yes today via artificial insemination, a woman can get pregnant without having sex, but that was not an option 2,500 years ago.
PaulSacramento wrote: Science comments on what it can observe directly via observation OR by remaining evidence.
At best, what science can say is that " based on what we know NOW, we can't explain how a person can be resurrected or who event "A" happened".
But science does not say that because they are not in the business of disproving every false claim that comes down the pike. If I claimed a woman could get pregnant by swallowing a watermelon seed, to say this is compatible with science simply because science does not refute it would be ridicules wouldn’t it?
Ken
You say that it wasn't an option 2000 years ago ( not sure where 2500 came from), and you know that HOW?
See, that is the issue and science does NOT make absolute statements ( though many science proponents certainly do).
Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?
PaulSacramento wrote:
Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?
Yeah that's pretty much it.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.
So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken
Only by God - the effect of his intervention and rejuvenation of dead bodies could be described by science if someone able to study it was there at the time, but that rejuvenation is not something that ever happens naturally.
Kenny wrote:
I suspect matter has always existed in one form or another.
Ken
I'd be inclined to agree with you if I didn't believe in God - or at least I'd think it just as likely as all matter coming into being at some point. No one was there at the time and it's pretty hard to work out what happened before the (presumed) Big Bang, so why not?
I used to like to boggle my mind sometimes even when I was a teenager by thinking of the Universe and anything else beyond it as all that exists - that it's not just everything in the world or universe but everything there is - speaking of physical things and space. I think we always imagine or have an awareness that whatever place or space we're talking about, that has boundaries and there's something outside it, but to try to think of everything... It still boggles my mind but now it makes me think, why does anything exist at all? Of course, the answer to me is God.
Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.
So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken
Only by God - the effect of his intervention and rejuvenation of dead bodies could be described by science if someone able to study it was there at the time, but that rejuvenation is not something that ever happens naturally.
So can you understand why a skeptic like myself would, remain skeptical of a claim that could never happen in the material world without the assistance of a God I don’t believe in, would be compatible with science (the study of the material world)? Can you understand my skepticism?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
PaulSacramento wrote:
Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?
Yeah that's pretty much it.
Ken
So, unless a claim can be verified by science in some way ( like computer models that are proven correct over time) then the claim isn't scientific and the view isn't compatible with science, correct?
Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.
So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken
Only by God - the effect of his intervention and rejuvenation of dead bodies could be described by science if someone able to study it was there at the time, but that rejuvenation is not something that ever happens naturally.
So can you understand why a skeptic like myself would, remain skeptical of a claim that could never happen in the material world without the assistance of a God I don’t believe in, would be compatible with science (the study of the material world)? Can you understand my skepticism?
Ken
Skepticism that the claim is compatible with science? Well, of course, if you don't believe in God, it's hard to see how miracles are possible. But I believe that if God made the universe he can do anything he likes, whether it's normally possible or not.
Skepticism is awesome, it really is.
IF it is applied to everything the same way.
Religion AND science.
I just find that it is not the case and, to be honest, I was that way too when I was a skeptic myself.
The whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" thing.
YET, I realized that I was not holding up science to the very same yard stick.
In science we routinely do get extraordinary claims and many times with little or no evidence ( see the multiverse thing for example) and yet we tend to accept them ( to one degree or another) at face value.
PaulSacramento wrote:
Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?
Yeah that's pretty much it.
Ken
So, unless a claim can be verified by science in some way ( like computer models that are proven correct over time) then the claim isn't scientific and the view isn't compatible with science, correct?
I would not say it has to be verified by science, there are many scientists who make claims that hasn't been verified by science (multiverse for example). If science has an explanation for "A" and the claim contradicts this explanation science provides, then I would say the claim is not compatible with science.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.
So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken
Only by God - the effect of his intervention and rejuvenation of dead bodies could be described by science if someone able to study it was there at the time, but that rejuvenation is not something that ever happens naturally.
So can you understand why a skeptic like myself would, remain skeptical of a claim that could never happen in the material world without the assistance of a God I don’t believe in, would be compatible with science (the study of the material world)? Can you understand my skepticism?
Ken
Skepticism that the claim is compatible with science? Well, of course, if you don't believe in God, it's hard to see how miracles are possible. But I believe that if God made the universe he can do anything he likes, whether it's normally possible or not.
It isn't about what I believe, its about what is compatible with scientific claims.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
PaulSacramento wrote:Skepticism is awesome, it really is.
IF it is applied to everything the same way.
Religion AND science.
I just find that it is not the case and, to be honest, I was that way too when I was a skeptic myself.
The whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" thing.
YET, I realized that I was not holding up science to the very same yard stick.
In science we routinely do get extraordinary claims and many times with little or no evidence ( see the multiverse thing for example) and yet we tend to accept them ( to one degree or another) at face value.
I can't speak for others, and I am sure you (and plenty of others here) will disagree, but I do not see myself has holding religion to any more of a higher standard than I do science.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Given Kenny's understanding of things (sorry to talk about you in third person, well perhaps not since I am right? ha!), I wonder how Kenny finds science compatible with many other things.
There are plenty of things that clearly can't be described in scientific terms which are part of reality: mathematics, logic, language, history, and well, consciousness. It is never going to be possible to put these under a microscope.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
PaulSacramento wrote:
Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?
Yeah that's pretty much it.
Ken
So, unless a claim can be verified by science in some way ( like computer models that are proven correct over time) then the claim isn't scientific and the view isn't compatible with science, correct?
I would not say it has to be verified by science, there are many scientists who make claims that hasn't been verified by science (multiverse for example). If science has an explanation for "A" and the claim contradicts this explanation science provides, then I would say the claim is not compatible with science.
