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

[Aupmanyav]

But what of miracles?

I see them on TV and Youtube. They are flabbergasting. Imagine, some one making the White House or Taj Mahal disappear. It has happened.

 

[Clara Tea]

Science and religion should never be together.

It's simply a matter of being two completely different things with no existing relationship or connection.

If both theists and scientists argue about the age of the earth, they have a connection (though both disagree). Further analysis is necessary (perhaps time dilation due to relativity? or translation error?)

 

[EtuMalku]

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

Is your whole life centered on the physical? Mine is not, and I'm a Satanist.

 

[Clara Tea]

We're not wired to be rational. We're wired to make quick, knee-jerk decisions.

For 99% of our evolutionary history, evidence gathering, analysis, and rational planning were fast tracks to being a smilodon's lunch.

Rationality and logic are modern affectations, and most people are not good at it. It takes special training.

Irrationally reaching a decision, then doing the exact opposite, works well, until one reaches a correct conclusion using irrational thinking.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Your standard for evidence is as brain depedent as mine and so are your normative rules, just like mine.

Yeah, I always knew that there is something common between you and myself. I think evidence is evaluated through brain. No?

Is your whole life centered on the physical? Mine is not, and I'm a Satanist.

Good to know. What is physical and what is not physical?

 

[Clara Tea]

I see the biggest issue is that both science and religion need to progress together, each need to be embraced.

At this present time I see the tide turned from religions rejection science to where a lot of science has abandoned religion.

Regards Tony

Many scientists that I know are highly religious. Some are my good friends. When I was getting my degrees in various forms of science, I met a lot of people around the world, and they had various religions.

I also was lectured by physics professors who asked us all to think about our contribution to nuclear weapons. We all have a moral responsibility.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yeah, I always knew that there is something common between you and myself. I think evidence is evaluated through brain. No? Good to know. What is physical and what is not physical?

Many wonder if brains are up to the challenge of evaluating the world or God. What would happen if we let our dog evaluate us? What would happen if we let a mouse evaluate a cat?

 

[Audie]

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.

Dark matter is hardly a leap of faith

When science finds some idea is false, or data is false, its discarded.

Religions rationalize.

 

[Audie]

If both theists and scientists argue about the age of the earth, they have a connection (though both disagree). Further analysis is necessary (perhaps time dilation due to relativity? or translation error?)

Theists juat make things up
and always get it wrong.

 

[Audie]

Many scientists that I know are highly religious. Some are my good friends. When I was getting my degrees in various forms of science, I met a lot of people around the world, and they had various religions.

I also was lectured by physics professors who asked us all to think about our contribution to nuclear weapons. We all have a moral responsibility.

The morality of nuclear weapons is in
their use.

 

[Kenny]

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.

I think that if one holds to that position, they we relegate God to simply science.

For an example: science would say "you can't walk on water" yet, if God so chose that you did so, it would happen regardless of science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Many scientists that I know are highly religious. Some are my good friends. When I was getting my degrees in various forms of science, I met a lot of people around the world, and they had various religions.

I also was lectured by physics professors who asked us all to think about our contribution to nuclear weapons. We all have a moral responsibility.

Perhaps more down to personality though than intelligence and how one uses such?

 

[Valjean]

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

Faith is belief. It's a subset of belief.

I think there's a problem with people mistaking faith for knowledge; with being unable recognize and evaluate evidence, or draw reasonable conclusions therefrom.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Retaining a belief in Santa and flying reindeer, in the face of massive contrary evidence, requires a degree of mental contortionism that can seriously hamper rational thought globally.

Acquiring reason, logic and analytic skills, whilst retaining faith, could be psychically distressing.
Like oil and water, they don't mix.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many wonder if brains are up to the challenge of evaluating the world or God. What would happen if we let our dog evaluate us? What would happen if we let a mouse evaluate a cat?

I think dogs, cats and mice, all are into evaluation, not just humans. Without such evaluation of beings and situations, no living being can survive. Humans evaluate evidence about the world and God/Gods/Goddesses.

 

[Valjean]

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.

How are you defining reason???

 

[Aupmanyav]

For an example: science would say "you can't walk on water" yet, if God so chose that you did so, it would happen regardless of science.

Yeah, I can move the mountains, but I choose not to do it. It will disturb the mountain dwellers. Now, you cannot force me to do what I don't want to do.

 

[Valjean]

If both theists and scientists argue about the age of the earth, they have a connection (though both disagree). Further analysis is necessary (perhaps time dilation due to relativity? or translation error?)

We must look to the reason for the disagreement: the source of their respective beliefs. One's built on a foundation of objective, testable evidence, the other on what your parents told you.

Irrationally reaching a decision, then doing the exact opposite, works well, until one reaches a correct conclusion using irrational thinking.

Huh?

 

[syo]

How are you defining reason???

Something that works. It could be anything.

 

[PureX]

Faith is belief. It's a subset of belief.

I think there's a problem with people mistaking faith for knowledge; with being unable recognize and evaluate evidence, or draw reasonable conclusions therefrom.

Belief is nothing more than presumed surety. Believing that X = X is the presumption that what one believes is so. That X = X. Faith is not the presumption that X = X, it's the hope that X = X and the willingness to act accordingly. Whereas knowing that X = X comes from having experiential proof that the idea functions within the context of our reality. And you are right, people get these confused and mixed up all the time. And that confusions creates a cloud of ignorance within which a great many arguments are spawned.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Signal / noise ratio...

Sent people off onalotta wild goose chases too.

Yes it did. But still it did contribute.