So long as religion is seen as pat answers to every question, it is incompatible with science. But does it have to be that? So long as a religionist accepted the essential mystery of their god then science needn't pose any conflict for them.

Christians could admit that their understanding of the bible is imperfect. They could recognize that how one should read the bible isn't obvious, that an allegorical approach is as permissible as a legalistic one. If they would accept this much humility and uncertainty, then science would be an easy hurdle.

(May 21, 2015 at 10:00 am)AFTT47 Wrote: This particular type of conflict tends to resolve itself quickly.

Not for her kids...

(May 21, 2015 at 10:59 am)whateverist Wrote: So long as religion is seen as pat answers to every question, it is incompatible with science. But does it have to be that? So long as a religionist accepted the essential mystery of their god then science needn't pose any conflict for them.

Christians could admit that their understanding of the bible is imperfect. They could recognize that how one should read the bible isn't obvious, that an allegorical approach is as permissible as a legalistic one. If they would accept this much humility and uncertainty, then science would be an easy hurdle.

But that's just the thing, many theists do talk about how uncomprehensible to our minds their god is, but that he has revealed certain things about reality.

Again, if theists were to say something like "if our religious claims come into conflict with verifiable, testable, empirical evidence, the religious claim is then discarded", then I suppose that would be..."okay", but you'd still have people making unsubstantiated claims from ridiculous sources until they're proven wrong...which isn't a reasonable way to go about things.

The religionist we come across most often in the US - like practically all the time - are self satisfied fundies like Drich.

Unless you've met one of the good ones I can fully understand why you'd assume this is all there is. Fundies are just in it to get the carrot and avoid the stick .. and remind us unceasingly that we can do the same. They're boring. I'll have to start a thread with blurbs from interesting religionists, maybe in a month when school lets out.

A devoted christian I used to know would just weasle his way out by saying the bible doesn't deny any conclusions of science and if it does then you're just reading it wrong

It depends on how literally you believe, I guess, but science and religion disagree fundamentally, because the former is always self-correcting in looking for answers and the latter says it already knows
To me personally, they're difficult to reconcile

I agree with those of you who say it doesn't have to be in conflict, and sure, not all practices of religion are out there making wagers on their lives like this woman. Perhaps it's not religion and science, but more specifically, faith being at odds with the critical approach to truth which allows good science to produce useful and reliable results. I recognize the disparity in the application of faith among those who claim to be religious, and so I couldn't possibly say that they're all equally at odds with science. But I can't help but think that when this observation is brought up in defense of the mild and less extreme religious folk and we gladly acknowledge it to be true, the people such as this woman feel reaffirmed in their practices and the real problem remains. As long as religious people as a whole maintain their relativist attitude in the public square toward the incompatible claims being made under the cloak of religion, I think it's unlikely that we'll see a line drawn in the sand between harmful and productive habits of thought.

Dogmatic faith-based assertions as a way of describing reality are in conflict with the critical examination of reality, could be one way of putting it.

Hypothetical:

What if there were a sect of Christianity that pared away all the obviously false crap from the Old and New Testament, all the miracles and magic and prophecy and shit like that, and was literally only the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior to achieve immortal life, and that's it.

The members of this sect used science, skepticism, and empiricism to discover and inform their ideas about all other aspects of their lives.

Would this religion be 'in conflict' with science? I guess...technically not? But that's only beacuse their claim (Jesus = immortailty) cannot be tested at all by science, and has no possible way (right now) of being verified. I find the cognitive dissonance and the clashing methodologies of discovering things about the world to be more in conflict than any specific claim or set of claims.

(May 21, 2015 at 11:30 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Again, if theists were to say something like "if our religious claims come into conflict with verifiable, testable, empirical evidence, the religious claim is then discarded", then I suppose that would be..."okay"...

Which interestingly enough, that's precisely what my father told me. Of the few times he would ever speak in front of me, he would rip on creationists and say science trumps the bible on literal claims like that. He's still a Christian, and I actually called him out on the conflict of him being a scientist and a Christian when I was fifteen and telling my parents I didn't believe in God. He said it boiled down to faith and that I "just wouldn't understand."

The thing is, he's the smartest man I've ever met personally. I mean, he has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry for Christ's sake, so he's certainly not ignorant of the principles behind empirical observation. I just can't wrap my head around it, but my parents are so passive about religion that it's literally a non-issue. I do notice he gets a little uncomfortable when I bring up religion, though.

(May 21, 2015 at 9:02 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: A woman that used to work with my wife posted this on FB yesterday, and I couldn't help but wonder how her kids would feel if they saw this years from now when they find out that their mom had every chance to remove the tumor that killed her, but rather than listening to the people that can see inside her skull,  she decided to invest in a magical fantasy for the chances of her survival. No conflict here...

---

---

Future Darwin award nominee.

(May 21, 2015 at 12:11 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 11:30 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Again, if theists were to say something like "if our religious claims come into conflict with verifiable, testable, empirical evidence, the religious claim is then discarded", then I suppose that would be..."okay"...

Which interestingly enough, that's precisely what my father told me. Of the few times he would ever speak in front of me, he would rip on creationists and say science trumps the bible on literal claims like that. He's still a Christian, and I actually called him out on the conflict of him being a scientist and a Christian when I was fifteen and telling my parents I didn't believe in God. He said it boiled down to faith and that I "just wouldn't understand."

The thing is, he's the smartest man I've ever met personally. I mean, he has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry for Christ's sake, so he's certainly not ignorant of the principles behind empirical observation. I just can't wrap my head around it, but my parents are so passive about religion that it's literally a non-issue. I do notice he gets a little uncomfortable when I bring up religion, though.

I wish more theists were like him.

I'd just ask him..what about the beliefs he holds in his religion that...can't be tested (or verified or falsified) by investigation? What basis would he have for holding those beliefs, and isn't accepting a conclusion before sufficient evidence has been provided...kind of the definition of unscientific?