"Science v Religion"

[Esquilax]

So, fossils, carbon dating, and aborigines: It also appears that there may have been a creation before this one, if you look at the creation account, we see that there was already water, there was already earth underneath, etc. (I said it in my previous post). There's more biblical evidence than this, but that also comes with a lot of explaining- so I'll just leave it out.
Carbon 14 dating also supports this- and provides some harmony between ancient finds and the idea of a pre-creation; as I believe that Carbon 14 decay is generally not affected by external influences? That's why I said in my original post that science can help us to understand God (or lead us to an alternative truth- which can only be good for us to make the most of our lives). I guess they would have had a different plan, a different means of redemption etc. but we just aren't told much about it- but that's probably how the angels came about. (keep in mind, angel's were often mistaken for men!)

I can't say I find this terribly compelling, given that aspects of it still clash with the origin stories of all religious doctrines; since we can trace the genetic lineage of humanity back to proto-human animals that are vastly different from, say, the creation account of Adam and Eve in both the form of the initial life forms and the mechanism of their original creation, then christianity would have to relinquish its deathgrip on the concept of original sin, and all that follows on from that.

I guess what I'm saying is, you can't get to any specific god from that concept, and in fact you'd be contradicting more than a few. You'd be getting to a non denominational deistic god, in the end.

[jap23]

I can't say I find this terribly compelling, given that aspects of it still clash with the origin stories of all religious doctrines; since we can trace the genetic lineage of humanity back to proto-human animals that are vastly different from, say, the creation account of Adam and Eve in both the form of the initial life forms and the mechanism of their original creation, then christianity would have to relinquish its deathgrip on the concept of original sin, and all that follows on from that.

I guess what I'm saying is, you can't get to any specific god from that concept, and in fact you'd be contradicting more than a few.

The specific objective that led me to say that was to show that science doesn't contradict with the bible, as was the subject of the thread. By no means do I base my beliefs on the theory of pre-creation... no one should. All the bible says about this is:
1) There was land, and there was water before God's creative acts in Gen 1
2) Angels were there before God's creative acts in Gen 1
so, my point was (without any excitement or imagination) we cannot make big claims about how science contradicts with God when the fact is, so little is said about it... so there are much better places to look for proof of or against God's existence. My point was merely to show they don't contradict. That is all.
As for the rest, I can't connect with your string of arguments...:
--I wasn't saying that Adam and Eve were proto-human animals at all!?
--I know I can't get to any specific God with that concept- I don't base my beliefs on gaps.
--I don't recall any clashes of doctrine (not that I believe in anyway; there are so many weird ideas out there, I'm not surprised you said that)

You'd be getting to a non denominational deistic god, in the end.

Although I hope what I wrote previously explains why I don't believe this- I still would just like to say another thing:
"in the end" I just want to know the truth- and become absolutely sure of it! . I joined these forums to give atheism some decent consideration (I do pay attention to atheist sites, books and shows- but they haven't yet done the trick for me; I also have plenty of reasons for my current belief in the bible- but I'll only start threads when I get a decent amount of time).

[PyroManiac]

I don't believe that religion is an anti-science, I believe that it is their own version of science, and they curve it into what they think is real. Science is straight-up facts and is proven facts/yet to be proved theories. Indeed, The word reason's meaning has changed many times over the years. I think that religion just exagerates science into their own beliefs and use that to contradict atheism beliefs.

[EGross]

When religion was in charge, it did its best to squash anything that would be contrary to Scripture, things like the sun revolving around the earth was quite popular (in a recent poll, there are stil a lot of people, in the double digits, who still believe that). People were imprisoned, ruined, or worse for having dangerous ideas.

Now that the Church cannot do these things, you still have religion pushing itself to stop science, but with little effect. Stem cell research, comes to mind as well as trying to force their religious beliefs by renaming it "Intelligent Design", which fools nobody. There's more.

Now you do have very devout religious people in the sciences who do not hold that way. So maybe it isn't about religion as much as the mouth breathers that would picket "God hates Fags" by a funeral of a gay person.

[Gonzalo697]

Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

[ATL]

Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

What you mean by that? There is more than just those two options...
Very weird phrasing since I can have trust itself in science or faith or understanding etc.

1. There are parts of science that I believe in because I understand them.
2. There are parts of science that I believe in because I have raw understanding of it and trust about that more complex things are as said.
3. And there are parts of science that I don't have view because I might haven't been hear them before or they don't have any effect to my life.

So where trust comes in, it's not same as faith. It's trust that have been earned and I always consider how much effect it have. Like what about if it's not true. What kind of things/decisions I can/might have to base on that trust?
So I don't have any faith in science, but that doesn't mean I would fully understand everything about science. Guess what I do if I find out that I have pure faith in something. I stop believing in it so it possibly goes to section 3 first, then if I'm interested in it it goes to 2 and maybe finally to 1.
But I would say that there probably are some people who have faith in science, no doubt. Put I think then they believe in science because of wrong reasons.