Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 27, 2024, 2:22 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Science v Religion"
#1
"Science v Religion"
Hi everyone,

I got the idea for this thread, from reading downbeatplumbs signature, quoted below.

(downbeat - hope you don't mind me using this to start a discussion)

Quote:Even if abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang theory and all the rest of science was fundamentally flawed it would not be an argument for gods existence

Now, what s/he says above here is correct, but I am curious as to where the sentiment of some of all religion being anti-science comes from?

I can only informed to properly speak for Catholicism, not others, but I am sure other groups - Juadism, Islam etc - boast achievements of their own. (I know that when Catholic Crusaders encountered Islamic culture in the Levant, as well as having a good fight, they also learned much from the muslims - about agriculture (irrigation), about chemistry (dyes etc), about engineering (water-wheels and water clocks) etc.)

For example, downbeat mentions the big bag theory above. It was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, who first postulated the big bang theory (You see, Georges was also a Professor of Physics and an Astronomer at the Catholic University* of Louven).

The big bang is a good example, as it allowed us to understand the creation mechanism of the universe. (Prior to this, scientists thought the universe had always existed and laughed at those who said it had been created somehow.)

*btw - do you know it was the Catholic Church which invented Universities? (and it has founded many, across the world). These centres of higher learning excellence are the direct descendant of its earlier "Cathedral Schools". The earlier Cathedral Schools developed into Universities around medieval times.

I just don't get why some people regard Catholic / other religion as anti-science or anti-knowledge, when facts like these are easily available for anyone to check up on.

Catholicism has always had a great respect and desire for scientific learning. As the Catholic Church is the oldest institution on earth, its fair to say it has an unrivalled on-going contribution to the advancement of human learning (both in terms of discovery and in the provision of popular education relating to discovery - the Church is the biggest non-Government educational body in the world).

For example, Seismology is known as "the Jesuit Science" thanks to that particular Catholic Orders work there. Many stars and features in space are named after the Jesuit priest-astronomers who first discovered them. Today, the Churchs stances on contentious topics are fully informed by science, such as homosexuality (Biological science) and abortion (Human embryology). In contrast, secular society either denies or ignores what science has taught us in these cases.

Some people like to suggest the Church used to like to tell people what to think, but has since been "put in its place" by science. but even a quick glance at Catholicisms history shows this to be false.

Saint Augustine of Hippo was an early Church philosopher, born in 354 AD. My Primary School was named after him (fact of the day for you!). He said:

Saint Augustine of Hippo Wrote:"Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Churchs greatest philosopher and theologian, lived much later than Augustine, in the 1200s, and said:

Saint Thomas Aquinas Wrote:The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.

That's as true today, as it was in the 1200s.

These quotes show that Catholicism has always figured that science knowledge is valuable and cannot be denied. And that stating something which is demonstrably false will just get you treated like the fool you are.

The only thing of substance you ever hear against the Church is the stuff about Galileo. In truth, his trial and house arrest was more down to a personal beef with the Pope, than any of his work. Previously, the Pope had been a personal friend and his patron, but they fell out as Galileo was seen to have (felt to have) publicly insulted him, though subtly. In those days, you didn't get away with that kind of thing and so a biased charge was rigged against him to put him through the wringer for his 'insolence'.

The only reason you hear of it is because of it must be the only example of such a personal feud between a Pope and a scientist.

Today, the Catholic Church works to promote science for the good of humanity via the Pontifical Academy for Science. It does this hand in hand with people of other faiths and with atheists. For example, at least two of the current three British members of the Pontifical Academy for Science are openly atheist (including Stephen Hawking).

So what do you guys think?

Do you perceive religion, or just some religion, to be 'anti-science'? Why?

Do you see science and religion as being mutually exclusive, enemies even? Why?

As stated, I can only speak in any detail about Catholicism, but for us - at least - the idea that we seek to suppress scientific discovery or the spread of knowledge is an exceptionally erroneous criticism.

Cheers
GS
Reply
#2
RE: "Science v Religion"
Thomas Aquinas also thought of the jews as the source of all evil in Europe and was responsible for the worst progroms in medieval europe.

The definition of the word reason has changed a bit since these years.



So where do I get the idea that religion is anti science? Well may I ask you as a catholic why you believe - since you believe what your church dictates - that condoms actualy further HIV instead of preventing it.
Reply
#3
RE: "Science v Religion"
Quote:Even if abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang theory and all the rest of science was fundamentally flawed it would not be an argument for gods existence



This actual quote is nothing to do with religion being anti science, although i believe religion is anti science.

But first of all with relation to the quote i believe its talking about the scientific things which go against parts of the bible and the quran.
abiogenesis and evolution vs adam and eve, the big bang theory vs let there be light. The earth is round vs the earth is a flat and god prevents everything from slipping off it.

Im sure i could find evidence of religion hindering science but i just cant be bothered, I know creationists do a lot of this just off the top of my head,

When i say i cant be bothered it wouldnt actually take much effort but i dont think this thread deserves the effort beyond what ive already typed.


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#4
RE: "Science v Religion"
Religion is okay with science...until it contradicts their dogma.
Reply
#5
RE: "Science v Religion"

[Image: shut-up-and-take-my-money-lg-w.jpg]


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
RE: "Science v Religion"
What have Christians to be afraid of? Science is the study of God's creation- it should only shed light on everything. I personally don't find much solid contradiction between science and the bible- you just need to be open minded:
For example I believe in seven literal days in Gen 1; but does it contradict with evolution? No, because if we believe in God we could believe that he was able (and did, according the bible) make beasts, insects, fish and birds without being forced to first make a blob/slime/single cell, etc...
And what about pre-creations, old earth, etc?... when you read Gen 1, you find that there already water, and land underneath, etc... the earth was there already. When you get scientists saying 'the earth is 4.5 billion years old', they can be right!

When Paul said that Timothy should avoid 'science' (1 Tim 6:20-21) the actual greek word was was 'gnosis'- it seems Paul was talking about "gnostics", look them up! You'll see they certainly did make a lot of mess.
but I'm not with the church on the whole condom/HIV issue...
I'm kinda busy and don't have much time for these forums, so if you respond to this post, don't expect me to reply immediately- but I will try to get back to you sometime.
Reply
#7
RE: "Science v Religion"
(March 4, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Hi everyone,


Cheers
GS


Religion v Science is a non-sequitur.

They are both systems of belief, there are fundamental assumptions made in the foundation of both constructs. They both provide censorship and hope (censorship in the form or rules to follow in the hope of a better - or everlasting - future). They are both anthropocentric. They are both sources of social and moral authority.

To adopt a socratic approach, if people reject 'religion' they tend towards 'science', without science what else is there for people to believe in?

If we can come to terms with this question and answer it we would be much better off as a species. IMO.


MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci

"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Reply
#8
RE: "Science v Religion"
Science works irrespective of your "belief"

What science does not give you is surety..... because we live in a changing universe.

Ultimately our understanding will improve and destroy our previous hypotheses. Science is not bound by dogma.

IF you NEED religion to be a "good " person then you must be a horrible individual to "need" such instruction.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#9
RE: "Science v Religion"
(March 5, 2013 at 8:21 am)jap23 Wrote: For example I believe in seven literal days in Gen 1; but does it contradict with evolution? No, because if we believe in God we could believe that he was able (and did, according the bible) make beasts, insects, fish and birds without being forced to first make a blob/slime/single cell, etc...

So, essentially your "open minded" take on evolution vs creation is "it's okay, because creationism is correct!"

Because... evolution is in direct contradiction with the genesis account, and it's been proven to be correct. But you've claimed here that evolution is compatible with the creation account, and then referred solely to the creation account?

Quote:They are both systems of belief, there are fundamental assumptions made in the foundation of both constructs. They both provide censorship and hope (censorship in the form or rules to follow in the hope of a better - or everlasting - future). They are both anthropocentric. They are both sources of social and moral authority.

Noooooo...

Science is a tool, not a belief system. One can believe in many things, and still accept science as a method by which we can deepen our understanding of the world around us. Nobody has a belief in science; one can accept the findings of science or not, but doing so does not make one dogmatic toward science, or ascribing to the values of science, because science does not propose any.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#10
RE: "Science v Religion"
(March 4, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Hi everyone,

I got the idea for this thread, from reading downbeatplumbs signature, quoted below.

(downbeat - hope you don't mind me using this to start a discussion)

aw shucks feel free.
I thought no-one had noticed I'd changed my sig.

Quote:Even if abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang theory and all the rest of science was fundamentally flawed it would not be an argument for gods existence

Quote:Now, what s/he says above here is correct, but I am curious as to where the sentiment of some of all religion being anti-science comes from?

Discusions with some passing chrsitians on this very forum.



Quote:For example, downbeat mentions the big bag theory above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvnYIxv_364


Quote:I just don't get why some people regard Catholic / other religion as anti-science or anti-knowledge,

Tell that to Galileo

http://digitaljournal.com/article/310901.

Quote:Catholicism has always had a great respect and desire for scientific learning.


right up until it conflicts with dogma, then they go all out to suppress.

Quote:Some people like to suggest the Church used to like to tell people what to think, but has since been "put in its place" by science. but even a quick glance at Catholicisms history shows this to be false.

You have obviously been looking in the wrong places.

http://religionvirus.blogspot.co.uk/2008...ntire.html

One Catholic priest destroyed the entire mayan written language.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite causal code 497 104853 October 25, 2017 at 8:04 am
Last Post: I_am_not_mafia
  Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite causal code 0 453 September 13, 2017 at 1:48 am
Last Post: causal code
  Religion hurts homosexuality but homosexuality kills religion? RozKek 43 10730 March 30, 2016 at 2:46 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Terrorism has no religion but religion brings terrorism. Islam is NOT peaceful. bussta33 13 4907 January 16, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Religion's affect outside of religion Heat 67 19828 September 28, 2015 at 9:45 pm
Last Post: TheRocketSurgeon
Rainbow Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion" CristW 288 49328 November 21, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Last Post: DramaQueen
  Bridging the Divide Between Science and Religion Mudhammam 3 1832 November 11, 2014 at 1:59 am
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Science and Religion cannot overlap. Mudhammam 97 11985 August 12, 2014 at 8:17 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Science Vs. Religion (Cute version) NoraBrimstone 12 2586 November 30, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Last Post: Mothonis
  Religion conflicting with science Bad Wolf 30 10380 October 15, 2013 at 11:35 pm
Last Post: ThomM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)