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

[Samael_Khan]

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.

Indeed they shouldn't threaten each other.

 

[Audie]

Yes it did. But still it did contribute.

More in reverse than ahead tho

 

[Audie]

Indeed they shouldn't threaten each other.

What does
" should" have to do with it?

 

[Colt]

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 and religion operate in 2 different realms, the material and the spiritual. They will never fully agree.

 

[Audie]

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.

What in science is ok it ignore or teach against?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Assertions about the non-physical are not falsifiable and therefore not in the realms of science. Any truth claims that are not falsifiable should be rejected.

 

[Valjean]

I asked how you defined "reason. Reply:

Something that works. It could be anything.

So: "functional?" "in working order?" like my watch? Is my watch reasonable?

Definition of REASON -- see definition #3. That's how we're using the word here, in the context of evidence evaluation or decision-making methodologies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I asked how you defined "reason. Reply:

So: "functional?" "in working order?" like my watch? Is my watch reasonable?

Definition of REASON -- see definition #3. That's how we're using the word here, in the context of evidence evaluation or decision-making methodologies.

You do know that logic has a limit, right? Or even evidence?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What use is any religion in research

Much more than we can ever know, it gives us the boundaries of virtue and morality.

the key is, both science and religion have boundaries we should not cross.

RegardsTony

 

[Audie]

Much more than we can ever know, it gives us the boundaries of virtue and morality.

the key is, both science and religion have boundaries we should not cross.

RegardsTony

I sure dont see that.
The Aztecs among others were into
human sacrifice.
Moraliy is a human construct.
Imo, all due respect,y bit you are just saying
things.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Why would you put science and reason on one side, and religion on another? Is not that a non religious viewpoint altogether? Science and reason?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Theists juat make things up
and always get it wrong.

I sure dont see that.
The Aztecs among others were into
human sacrifice.
Moraliy is a human construct.
Imo, all due respect,y bit you are just saying
things.

As this is a discussion, maybe we can agree that in the past religion and science have in the most part seemed to be opposing each other.

Maybe this is an attitude we need to change in our day?

From my perspective as a Baha'i, I try to balance faith with science. But maybe a Baha'i has an advantage in this aspect, as the bounty and possibilities of Science are written into our scriptures.

Maybe past Scriptures could not make it that clear, as mankind was not ready for science.

Regards Tony

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

We can only know each other so well through this forum, but I think it is universally true of humans that we are psychologically full of contradictions and that our reasoning is but a small ship upon a stormy ocean of emotion. I have never met anyone who was unaffected or who could at all times maintain rationality.

Humanity is a creature which thrives on irrationality mixed with threads of rationality. We like the idea of being rational, but we aren't.

For that reason I don't agree that it would be psychologically distressing. Rather, what is psycholically distressing is a rational stance. Rational people are often escaping from hurtful emotions. Strong students are often driven not by a love of reading or love of knowledge but fear. Justice is a compromise between revenge and necessary lenience. We build enormous buildings, skyscrapers, but leave them half empty. We can send people to space, but we can't find families for orphans. Tell me that humanity is rational.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think the key is respecting the different disciplines, one is science the other theology, one concerned with 'how' the other with 'why'.

Unlike the answers from science, the "answers" from religion can't be used for anything. Why is there suffering? God wills it. What happens after death? God will judge you, or you will come back as another creature. If I frame these same questions in yes or no form, I can also get answers from a Magic 8-Ball. Is there an afterlife? "Signs point to yes." Oh, that's great news! Is Christianity the true religion? "Yes definitely." Now I have my answers.

If that's all one wants is an answer based in nothing without any concern about whether it is correct or useful, he can go to religion for that, but he need not. A Ouija board or an astrologer can also give answers.

And why should one respect theology, but not the Magic 8-Ball?

So if we go by science versus religion (as a value system) useful belongs to religion.

Really? I don't think you could be more wrong. What use is religion? What ideas does it generate are useful? I have found none.

You do realize, do you not, that you used the fruits of science (the Internet) to tell the world that religion is more useful than science?

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

Neither of those is a leap of faith. Data suggests that the rate of universal expansion is accelerating. Existing physics could not account for that. The cause is unknown, but has been given a name. The concept of dark matter and even of accelerating expansion are provisional.

There is also no faith required to believe that some variation of string theory will eventually prove to have explanatory and predictive power.

Faith is unjustified belief. There is no unjustified belief involved with either concept. Faith is when you go from, "There might be a god" (my position) to "There is (or is not) a god."

If both theists and scientists argue about the age of the earth, they have a connection (though both disagree).

Whenever theists and scientists have disagreed, the scientists have been shown to be correct. Every time. Your example is a prime example of that. Theists say that there was a Great Flood. Scientists disagreed. They were correct. Theists say that the universe was created in six days. Scientists disagree. The scientists are correct. Theists say that humanity began as de novo as a pair of people intelligently designed. Science says that that is incorrect. Science is right.

I really don't understand all of this lip service paid to religion and faith being of value as different but complimentary ways of discerning truth. What truth? Only empiricism has contributed to man's fund of knowledge, not faith.

I've just been through this on another thread, where theists are exasperated at empiricists requiring compelling evidence before believing. They point their fingers and say, "Scientism!" and mean it in a critical sense. They imply that their softer, faith-based ways of "knowing" generates useful knowledge that the empiricists are missing out on, who they say rely excessively on evidence prior to belief.

But there is not an iota of evidence provided to support that view. I ask what useful insights have you gleaned by indulging in these other ways of knowing, and none are forthcoming. Over and over we see praise for religion and faith, but what are their fruits?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Really? I don't think you could be more wrong. What use is religion? What ideas does it generate are useful? I have found none.

You do realize, do you not, that you used the fruits of science (the Internet) to tell the world that religion is more useful than science?

...

Yeah, the problem is this: Useful has no objective referent. It is a first person value statement that is no true in objective terms and has no evidence. It is like the word "real" which also has no objective referent.
Useful is connected to good and good is not science nor rational.
I was referencing the demarcation between objective facts and subjective values and using this version of religion:
"Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings."
What is Religion?

Your worldview as you have laid it out is religious, it is just not supernatural.
And here is the lack of evidence in it.

Neither. It simply means that one should not believe in gods. That's true for all concepts with no demonstrable referent.
...

That is not science nor rational. It is a first person subjective normative value statement, that is not true with objective evidence.

This is where we disagree. You use a subjective value system like that rest of us, that is neither science nor rational. But if I demand evidence, you can't give it. How, there is no way to do it. It hasn't been solved in over 2000+ years since this one was observed:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
Measure is not science, it is the evaluation you do in the last bold one, which is without truth.

And yet you claim skepticism. Well, start by being skeptical of your own value system, before you continue to claim truth.

 

[Ella S.]

I agree with Einstein about the ideal of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Science tells us what "is," whereas religion tells us what we "ought" to do about it. I don't believe that religions should even attempt to make truth claims, because I whole-heartedly believe that the scientific method is the only decent way we have to approximate truth.

Religion can make value judgments, teach spiritual practices, inform philosophy and art, carry traditional celebrations, etc. It excels at that and might even be necessary for humanity's long-term well-being. However, once it starts to push the existence of spirits or deities or the efficacy of faith healing or magic spells, it's left its cushy corner and become pseudoscience.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 have heard a few people go so far as to say that if the Bible said 2+2=5, they would believe it. I just find that idolization of the text to be dangerous and bizarre.

 

[Audie]

I have heard a few people go so far as to say that if the Bible said 2+2=5, they would believe it. I just find that idolization of the text to be dangerous and bizarre.

But common

 

[Audie]

As this is a discussion, maybe we can agree that in the past religion and science have in the most part seemed to be opposing each other.

Maybe this is an attitude we need to change in our day?

From my perspective as a Baha'i, I try to balance faith with science. But maybe a Baha'i has an advantage in this aspect, as the bounty and possibilities of Science are written into our scriptures.

Maybe past Scriptures could not make it that clear, as mankind was not ready for science.

Regards Tony

The opposition is in fact v fantasy.
If your religion contains facts that is not unusual.
" Possibilities" and " perhaps", tho, is mighty thin soup.

 

[osgart]

Check and if no evidence is found, reject them.Agree to your first sentence, disagree with the second.Yes, Scriptures can be ferreted for historical information, but the information should go through normal check. RigVeda has nice information on Indo-Europeans.One could search for it if it existed.

How do you know that divinity doesn't exist? By divinity I mean supreme ideals of morality, ethics, reason, and virtue. By divine I mean total innocence as well. Or are we all doomed to relativity, never transcending what we are as physical creatures?

There probably isn't a God, but humans can submit to a transcendent power of divine attributes. The power realized in creativity, imagination, and bringing into existence what may not have ever existed before.

I think throughout history mankind has always strived to find better in themselves, and better in their ways. If we lose that wonder and imagination, that dream of ever drawing closer to cooperation with the divine than how can we ever find civil justice without taking it for granted?

Religion was a survival mechanism that kept people from destroying themselves only when they had to make better of it than what it literally was. I think we should distill out what made religion a vital force for some people to overcome their adversities and make a better tomorrow.

I understand that many people treasure and surrender themselves to this one fleeting existence, and then they are gone forever. I also understand that many live their lives in the expectation of living forever. I don't think that will ever change.

One is grounded in earthly reality. The other aloft in dreams of forever. There's positives and negatives in each attitude.

What will unify humanity in the future? What are the foundations of the future if we don't strive for better, and for all? What does better look like?