If our religious teachings are contrary to science and reason should we reject them?

[Audie]

Well the Bible has proven useful in archaeology considering that it is, imo, historical fiction. Especially when it comes to guiding us to historical information regarding certain civilisations.

Signal / noise ratio...

Sent people off onalotta wild goose chases too.

 

[pearl]

Well the Bible has proven useful in archaeology considering that it is, imo, historical fiction. Especially when it comes to guiding us to historical information regarding certain civilisations.

I think the key is respecting the different disciplines, one is science the other theology, one concerned with 'how' the other with 'why'. Neither ought to be a threat to the other.

 

[rational experiences]

Natural life is not another Human's thesis.

Language spoken as difference is by the nations owner human DNA diversity.

Proof science is not national.

It is a want. A thesis. A design. .a building....and machines.

Then what was never invented is pre formed form is changed. Science. A human practice.

Otherwise science as a human belief would only be stories. Religion in fact.

Science practiced.

Science does not exist anywhere else.

It is a humans choice.

The edict as human law was after humans life was witnessed scientific sacrificed. God has no name but god.

Do not give God a name. Only science had. Otherwise DNA will be removed as your families nation from the book of life. The human warning.

Genesis. Changed.

If you say I must have science to tell the truth. Which truth?

Medical says science. Biology.

 

[Sand Dancer]

A fundamental teaching of the Baha’i Faith is the harmony between science and religion. Abdu’l-Baha whose passing 100 years ago was commemorated by Baha’is worldwide this year, went even further.

“If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.”

Superstition | Bahá’í Quotes

Religion is often criticised on the basis of making claims that contradict reason and science. Some religions even celebrate claims where Divine Revelation is upheld over science. Other religions attempt to move away from literalism in their religion by considering allegorical interpretations and the like.

Each religion including the Baha’i Faith grapples with similar dichotomies, finding the balance between faith and reason. How do we deal with statements made by our religious founders that contradict science and religion? Is their guidance within your religion that better enables you to negotiate such dilemmas.

I’ve put this in the Interfaith discussion section as I’m interested to hear from practitioners from different religions and how they respond to such dilemmas. I’m disinterested in hearing from one group who simply wants to bash another.

Science answers how something happens, religion answers why. Try to integrate the two if possible.

 

[PureX]

I think it's only a problem for people that don't understand the difference between faith and belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What use is any religion in research

That is a debate question, so I will give a debate answer. There is no with strong rationality or with objective evidence a standard of useful. So if we go by science versus religion (as a value system) useful belongs to religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

“If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.”

Check and if no evidence is found, reject them.

There is no with strong rationality or with objective evidence a standard of useful. So if we go by science versus religion (as a value system) useful belongs to religion.

Agree to your first sentence, disagree with the second.

Well the Bible has proven useful in archaeology considering that it is, imo, historical fiction. Especially when it comes to guiding us to historical information regarding certain civilisations.

Yes, Scriptures can be ferreted for historical information, but the information should go through normal check. RigVeda has nice information on Indo-Europeans.

I don't think people should ever stop searching for the divine.

One could search for it if it existed.

 

[rational experiences]

Biology is living in its natural presence.

First says religion.

First is not one it is first. A word not a number.

First means of its own type. Highest.

A human is highest in nature yet it is first to its own type.

Animals have multi types as first then each first has multi types also.

Science says species.

Species proves evolution is not true.

So science owns no answer.

Science says it owns all answers

So religious science gave the answer.

It is not known. It is a mystery. Mystery was a used scientific term to regards the human ego. The ego does not know all.

Reasoned. O earth was a space God. Natural as it created its own heavens out of rock. Given a creator theme...science.

Not a string thesis.

Hence it was not a number line count. Nor was it time as O gases burning in a circular rotation around another light body.

Religion said no man is O God the supreme heavens creator Rock.

Nor did God own a beginning.

Only a human science formula reaction owned a beginning as science. Also an end.

A human as an end is a human. We live. We procreate our own species.

A formula science owns a beginning and an end. A reaction.

We don't exist as a reaction. Nor a formula.

Science hence told science science was wrong naming it religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Check and if no evidence is found, reject them.

That is not possible for morality, useful and metaphysics. Yet you make claims of morality, usefulness and metaphysics.

 

[exchemist]

A fundamental teaching of the Baha’i Faith is the harmony between science and religion. Abdu’l-Baha whose passing 100 years ago was commemorated by Baha’is worldwide this year, went even further.

“If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.”

Superstition | Bahá’í Quotes

Religion is often criticised on the basis of making claims that contradict reason and science. Some religions even celebrate claims where Divine Revelation is upheld over science. Other religions attempt to move away from literalism in their religion by considering allegorical interpretations and the like.

Each religion including the Baha’i Faith grapples with similar dichotomies, finding the balance between faith and reason. How do we deal with statements made by our religious founders that contradict science and religion? Is their guidance within your religion that better enables you to negotiate such dilemmas.

I’ve put this in the Interfaith discussion section as I’m interested to hear from practitioners from different religions and how they respond to such dilemmas. I’m disinterested in hearing from one group who simply wants to bash another.

The quote you refer to is I think rather unfair and wrong.

Statements and teaching of religion can be contrary to science due to honest misunderstandings and a less than perfect appreciation of the natural world, by peoples living in earlier times. It does not have to be superstition, though I suppose if it is later shown to be wrong then one might with hindsight say it is due to imagination.

We all grope towards better understanding all the time. There is no shame is being wrong or having an imperfect understanding, so long as when new light is cast upon the subject we are prepared to embrace it and re-evaluate our earlier beliefs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is not possible for morality, useful and metaphysics. Yet you make claims of morality, usefulness and metaphysics.

Morality pertains to society, not to science or religion. I don't remember having made any such claim.

Science and religion should never be together.

Well, in my belief, they are so intricately entwined that they cannot be separated.

So religion is wholly separate to science as it serves a purpose that science is impotent in and vice versa.

I beg to differ.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A fundamental teaching of the Baha’i Faith is the harmony between science and religion. Abdu’l-Baha whose passing 100 years ago was commemorated by Baha’is worldwide this year, went even further.

“If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.”

Superstition | Bahá’í Quotes

Religion is often criticised on the basis of making claims that contradict reason and science. Some religions even celebrate claims where Divine Revelation is upheld over science. Other religions attempt to move away from literalism in their religion by considering allegorical interpretations and the like.

Each religion including the Baha’i Faith grapples with similar dichotomies, finding the balance between faith and reason. How do we deal with statements made by our religious founders that contradict science and religion? Is their guidance within your religion that better enables you to negotiate such dilemmas.

I’ve put this in the Interfaith discussion section as I’m interested to hear from practitioners from different religions and how they respond to such dilemmas. I’m disinterested in hearing from one group who simply wants to bash another.

The OP title is "If our religious teachings are contrary to science and reason should we reject them?" I don't think you should make your supernatural stories too believable, because you provide no way out for the children you imprison within them. Supernatural stories are boundaries. They are lessons for children. They are fences, and if you never trust your children by allowing them to grow up you will maim them.

Imagine if every adult in town believed in Santa Clause and all eight reindeer. It would make for a creepy Shamalan movie. The problem would not be the story but the adults. They would be regressed to childhood by some degree, because instead of believing in the importance of right and wrong they'd believe in a naughty and nice list. They'd lose autonomy, the ability to pivot in situations where some un-niceness was required.

That is why I think the OP question is impossible to answer. No we shouldn't reject religious teachings just because they are not scientific or reasonable. It must be about what they are teaching us, but we shouldn't encase our children in uncrackable eggs either.

If you make your religion too scientific you harden it.

 

[Clara Tea]

A fundamental teaching of the Baha’i Faith is the harmony between science and religion. Abdu’l-Baha whose passing 100 years ago was commemorated by Baha’is worldwide this year, went even further.

“If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.”

Superstition | Bahá’í Quotes

Religion is often criticised on the basis of making claims that contradict reason and science. Some religions even celebrate claims where Divine Revelation is upheld over science. Other religions attempt to move away from literalism in their religion by considering allegorical interpretations and the like.

Each religion including the Baha’i Faith grapples with similar dichotomies, finding the balance between faith and reason. How do we deal with statements made by our religious founders that contradict science and religion? Is their guidance within your religion that better enables you to negotiate such dilemmas.

I’ve put this in the Interfaith discussion section as I’m interested to hear from practitioners from different religions and how they respond to such dilemmas. I’m disinterested in hearing from one group who simply wants to bash another.

Let me exaggerate a scientist so you can see what I am talking about. Lets say that lab rats had an electrode implanted in their brains, and when they pressed a button, they would have sexual ecstacy. They might starve to death, preferring sex over food. Scientists might scratch their heads and wonder why it would be that a rat likes sex.

So, the data could be right in front of scientists and they would not see it.

Lets take ESP, for example. Most scientists stomp their feet and declare that ESP is unscientific, and does not exist. Then, isn't it odd that many law enforcement agencies, such as the CIA have ESP projects (like MKULTRA) and fund them highly? Isn't it odd that psychics locate murdered bodies?

When a legitimate mathematician (Dr. Jessica Utts, currently at the University of California, Irvine) proved that ESP was real, most of the scientific community shunned her and rejected her research. Yet, they had not done research of their own. Dr. Utts said that if this was research about any other topic, the findings would have been accepted. Apparently no scientist wants to have a reputation like "Spooky Mulder....X-files."

In a recent movie, with Ted Danson, Danson said "I'd like to see it [Loch Ness Monster], before I believe it." The little girl said, "no, first you have to believe it, to see it."

Perhaps a mind has to be open to a possibility in order to see the data that is right in front of them?

Even a liar can tell the truth occasionally. When scientists, theists, and others agree, it is possible that all are right.

When a theist insists that the world is 6,000 years old, it might be possible that time dilated due to special relativity or general relativity. Or, it might be that years were measured by the movement of the earth around the sun, but if the earth had not yet been made, time could not be measured that way. Or, it could be that the translation was not accurate (the passages in the old testament about the age of the earth spoke of eras not years, possibly).

I conclude that scientists or theists might be wrong.

 

[Clara Tea]

Morality pertains to society, not to science or religion. I don't remember having made any such claim.
Well, in my belief, they are so intricately entwined that they cannot be separated.I beg to differ.

Science and religion entwined (I agree). But what of miracles?

 

[syo]

My opinion.

Science AND reason??? Scientists do what they can, reason is something else. Scientists simply try. What's the big deal?

Religion IS reason.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. because there isn't anything objective about the soul. However, spiritual philosophies have debated what the soul or is not for centuries.

If there is nothing objective, then it is an exercise in futility and should be abandoned. Seems spiritual philosophers are chasing a mirage.

 

[Clara Tea]

So what in that religion is contrary to science

Science has made some leaps of faith (dark matter causes acceleration of the expansion of the universe)(string theory might be right)....etc.

Anything that is wrong is contrary to the truth. So, if science or relgion encounters untrue information, that should be contrary to the truth that they both seek.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Morality pertains to society, not to science or religion. I don't remember having made any such claim.
...

Yeah, and we use different definitions of religion and science and thus we get different results. Your standard for evidence is as braindepedent as mine and so are your normative rules, just like mine.

 

[Clara Tea]

Established science where the evidence is plain as day, I believe religion should be rejected as true when it runs contrary.

There's still tons of room for religion to continue on though. There's still tons of speculative science as well. Not every truth is going to fall under the observation of science.

There's truth within the human experience. There's truth in objective science as well.

Religion has very good uses if read for what it is and not making the mythology out to be real.

I don't think people should ever stop searching for the divine. We should avoid religious delusions about it though. Science helps in that area.

Religions can cause harm if they reject certain science. For example, scientists might suggest masks, social distancing, and vaccines. Those theists who reject such science risk catching and spreading covid. Even those not involved in their religion can catch it from them. Several pastors have held meetings (though they could have at a distance), and that resulted in the spread of covid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If there is nothing objective, then it is an exercise in futility and should be abandoned. Seems spiritual philosophers are chasing a mirage.

That is not objective as in it is depend on your brain.