Why does science always upstage God?

[HappySkeptic]

But that would be religion involving itself in science, not science involving itself with religion.

Boru

Exactly.  If religion makes no claims that affect nature, then the two subjects do not overlap.  If religion does make claims that affect nature (i.e. if God does things), then religious claims can be (at least in theory) investigated by science.

A God could presumably destroy and recreate the universe every day, and create false memories and evidence that seems to explain the new universe.  Such a deity would be a trickster, and would be evil for creating the universe today in its current form with so much suffering.  Such a deity's actions would also not be testable by science.

But a deity that intervenes in the world would leave evidence of the change.  Also, at least some aspect of the deity would have to be natural to have interaction with the natural world.  Science would be able to investigate the changes and whatever natural aspect the god has (i.e. is there a buildup of energy with every miracle?  Is the god's knowledge limited by the speed of light?  Under what circumstances does the god do things?)

[brewer]

Jesus appeared in my pancake. Religion-nature-science. Investigate away.

[Brian37]

Because science isn't in the business of involving itself with religion

That’s only because religious people throw tantrums and decry that god is “above and beyond” the reach of science. That doesn’t make it true.

A long time ago, when I was wet behind the ears in my skepticism, I got stumped, briefly by someone arguing "none-overlapping magisteria" Which is nothing more than trying to pretend Superman's sperm are caviar. 

It is always important to me, to note that every religion in the world, bar none, have apologists who try to retrofit science to suit their agenda to get science to point to their club, as if that one religion was the patent holder on science.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That’s only because religious people throw tantrums and decry that god is “above and beyond” the reach of science. That doesn’t make it true.

A long time ago, when I was wet behind the ears in my skepticism, I got stumped, briefly by someone arguing "none-overlapping magisteria" Which is nothing more than trying to pretend Superman's sperm are caviar. 

It is always important to me, to note that every religion in the world, bar none, have apologists who try to retrofit science to suit their agenda to get science to point to their club, as if that one religion was the patent holder on science.

Boru

[Brian37]

A long time ago, when I was wet behind the ears in my skepticism, I got stumped, briefly by someone arguing "none-overlapping magisteria" Which is nothing more than trying to pretend Superman's sperm are caviar. 

It is always important to me, to note that every religion in the world, bar none, have apologists who try to retrofit science to suit their agenda to get science to point to their club, as if that one religion was the patent holder on science.

Boru

Changing to adapt is what every religion does. If Buddhism says that evolution is true and the Big Bang happened, that is great, but that does not make Buddhism the seat of human morality or the patent holder of science.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

Changing to adapt is what every religion does. If Buddhism says that evolution is true and the Big Bang happened, that is great, but that does not make Buddhism the seat of human morality or the patent holder of science.

No one said it did. I’m just pointing out to you that there are exceptions.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Boru

Yet Dalai Lama nevertheless accepts at least two supernatural claims, reincarnation and the "law of karma," and (in the same book where that quote is from, "The Universe in a Single Atom") he criticizes the theory of evolution along creationist lines, arguing that mutations aren’t random and that the notion of "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (it isn’t). So, like with all faiths, Buddhism literalism about some beliefs makes it incompatible with science.

[Brian37]

Changing to adapt is what every religion does. If Buddhism says that evolution is true and the Big Bang happened, that is great, but that does not make Buddhism the seat of human morality or the patent holder of science.

No one said it did. I’m just pointing out to you that there are exceptions.

Boru

Buddhism is not an exception, it is a religion like any other. Buddhism has monks and temples, and holy writings and holy figures. If it walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, it is a religion.

[Jehanne]

No one said it did. I’m just pointing out to you that there are exceptions.

Boru

Buddhism is not an exception, it is a religion like any other. Buddhism has monks and temples, and holy writings and holy figures. If it walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, it is a religion.

Ha!  (Just kidding...)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No one said it did. I’m just pointing out to you that there are exceptions.

Boru

Buddhism is not an exception, it is a religion like any other. Buddhism has monks and temples, and holy writings and holy figures. If it walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, it is a religion.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a religion, you ignorant, reading comprehension-damaged moron. You said (well, strongly implied) that religious people want science to confirm their religious beliefs. I pointed out that the top dog of one of the world’s major religions has flat out said that if science contradicts his religion, his religion will change to accommodate science. THAT’S the exception.

Boru