Is religion against science?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it doesn't.


Yet, despite all the prayers of even the most sincere Protestants, they are fragmented in large part over what the Bible "obviously" says. You may not like the truth, but the Bible is only a part of the Christian framework of revelation; sacred tradition is also a part of it and actually precedes the canon. Sola scriptura is a late innovation. You can wilfully deny this, but it is the truth whether you like it or not.

Fragmentation in Christianity hardly started with the Reformation.

 

[Glaurung]

Fragmentation in Christianity hardly started with the Reformation.

No, but it was the the biggest most important schism in the western church. And the result has been nothing but endless fragmentation, because in Protestantism, everyone is their own theologian and everyone "understands" the Bible. You cannot expect a unified Church when there is no higher authority but how you "feel" about a certain text.

Both Calvin and Luther recognised this, but Pandora's box had already been opened.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but it was the the biggest most important schism in the western church.

Arguable, but if it was, it's only because Protestantism has been so successful.

And the result has been nothing but endless fragmentation, because in Protestantism, everyone is their own theologian and everyone "understands" the Bible. You cannot expect a unified Church when there is no higher authority but how you "feel" about a certain text.

Many Protestants say that it isn't "how they feel", but the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I agree with you and don't expect that the Protestant approach would lead to unity, but this is only because I don't think the Christian god is real. If I did, I would consider God just as capable of guiding individual believers as guiding the Pope.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Catholic Church is better than many religions when it comes to science, but it definitely has doctrines that are opposed to science. For instance:

The Catholic Church: all human beings arose from a single original male-female pair:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Science: speciation happens in populations, not individuals or lone pairs:
http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section2.rhtml

Science: the minimum population size is at least ~50 to prevent short-term extinction and ~500 - 5000 for long-term survival:

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154633/

We've talked about that before. Personally, I just really don't care much about it. There's also alternative views about Adam and Eve among Catholics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We've talked about that before. Personally, I just really don't care much about it.

Whether you care is your prerogative, but there's a difference between "the Catholic Church is not anti-science" and "the Catholic Church is not anti science in any way I care about."

There's also alternative views about Adam and Eve among Catholics.

... but to the extent that they're aligned with scientific understanding, they're considered heretical by the Church.

And besides disagreeing with the conclusions of science, a group can be anti-science by opposing the process of science. In that regard, the Catholic Church's opposition to stem cell research makes it one of the most anti-science organizations in the world today, based on the magnitude of its impact.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Whether you care is your prerogative, but there's a difference between "the Catholic Church is not anti-science" and "the Catholic Church is not anti science in any way I care about."


... but to the extent that they're aligned with scientific understanding, they're considered heretical by the Church.

And besides disagreeing with the conclusions of science, a group can be anti-science by opposing the process of science. In that regard, the Catholic Church's opposition to stem cell research makes it one of the most anti-science organizations in the world today, based on the magnitude of its impact.

The Church doesn't opposed stem cell research. It opposes stem cell research that uses fetal stem cells.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Church doesn't opposed stem cell research. It opposes stem cell research that uses fetal stem cells.

... which makes up a significant part of that research, and doesn't change the validity of my point from before: if only just for this position, the Catholic Church is one of the most anti-science organizations in the world today.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

... which makes up a significant part of that research, and doesn't change the validity of my point from before: if only just for this position, the Catholic Church is one of the most anti-science organizations in the world today.

You'll take any little chance you can get to bash the Catholic Church since you hate it so much. So I really don't care to discuss anything about the Church with you. If we were allowed to ignore staff members, you would've been ignored long ago.

 

[Milton Platt]

It depends on the religion. Christianity does not make any sort of scientific claims. When I say Christianity I mean the Bible. On the other hand, the Quran makes several scientific assertions that are in open contradiction with experimental scientific observations.

Please quote a couple of those, will you....I mean from their holy book.

And by the way, whether or not it is in the Bible, Christianity continually tries to make scientific claims. They just fail to be able to support them.

 

[gnostic]

The idiots who wrote the bible or the Qur'an don't even know what science is, or that science exist.

So how could any religion be against science, if the authors could possibly know what science is?

Does Abraham or Moses know what is science? No, they don't because they don't know what is science.

Does Jesus know what science is? No, he doesn't, because he couldn't oppose something that he didn't know.

Does Muhammad oppose science? No, Muhammad doesn't, because he is utterly clueless to what science is. I doubt very much that he met a scientist or know science do.

So for you to ask people to quotes from scriptures that have no knowledge of science, seemed to be pointless question you are asking or requesting.

But to honest answer your question, the scriptures don't oppose science, because none of the scriptures know anything about science. It is some believers of these religions who reject science because of their silly superstitious beliefs in their scriptures or religions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Please quote a couple of those, will you....I mean from their holy book.
And by the way, whether or not it is in the Bible, Christianity continually tries to make scientific claims. They just fail to be able to support them.

A good question. I endorse your point.
Regards

 

[Eileen]

Mat 9:17

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. Guys, they (people of faith) may not have used the terms but they were not stupid.

 

[Aquitaine]

Giv

More anti Muslim nonsense......

Give over, stop behaving like some hyper-sensitive apologist.

 

[paarsurrey]

@ Post #50
Posts having impolite words don't need to be responded.
One could write one's argument/s, if any, in polite words.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Mat 9:17

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. Guys, they (people of faith) may not have used the terms but they were not stupid.

Stupid, no. But they did not employ the scientific methods we use today. That's why there was so much mythology about. When they observed a phenomenon they could not readily understand, it had to be a demon, or witch, or god of some sort.

 

[Eileen]

Stupid, no. But they did not employ the scientific methods we use today. That's why there was so much mythology about. When they observed a phenomenon they could not readily understand, it had to be a demon, or witch, or god of some sort.

Although much mythology did develop early on not all humans ascribed things they could not totally understand to some demon or witch but yes they did and still do ascribe some things not understandable to the Creator of all things. The fact that there are those who do not believe there is any reason to believe there is a Creator does not prove there is not any more than faith alone proves there is. But gnostic seems to equate faith/trust in something beyond mankind's current understanding with idiocy. This is incorrect and that is what I was responding to. Also, one of the basic components of the scientific method is observation and that they most certainly could do. There is no reason to believe the other four basic scientific principals were not also employed in the normal course of life.

 

[Milton Platt]

Although much mythology did develop early on not all humans ascribed things they could not totally understand to some demon or witch but yes they did and still do ascribe some things not understandable to the Creator of all things. The fact that there are those who do not believe there is any reason to believe there is a Creator does not prove there is not any more than faith alone proves there is. But gnostic seems to equate faith/trust in something beyond mankind's current understanding with idiocy. This is incorrect and that is what I was responding to. Also, one of the basic components of the scientific method is observation and that they most certainly could do. There is no reason to believe the other four basic scientific principals were not also employed in the normal course of life.

It is not possible to tell the god from the demons. Invisible things look remarkably similar to non-existent things and to each other..

You are correct that not believing does not demonstrate a lack of the things existence, it merely shows a lack of EVIDENCE of the thing's existence.That sword is two edged. Believing in a thing does not make it true, either. That's why we rely on the scientific method instead of just believing what pleases us. So in that regard, your argument is self defeating. If you would have it that because some group of people believed something it is true because of the fact of that belief, then we should all be polytheists believing in thousands of gods, many whom contradict each other.

The word gnostic simply means to know or have knowledge. So I don't follow your meaning about the idiocy part.

In short, after 2000 years, there has been no good evidence of a supernatural being. Just natural processes unfolding.

 

[Milton Platt]

Mat 9:17

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. Guys, they (people of faith) may not have used the terms but they were not stupid.

Only if the bottles are inferior in the first place. I have recycled wine bottles for years when making wine at home, and beer bottles as well. Actually, I don't think the Hebrews used bottles much. They used wine skins and clay containers, because early glass containers were to delicate. The Romans did make glass containers and the wine was poured into it for fancy events.

 

[Eileen]

I am not arguing this point I was and am responding to the post made by 'gnostic' that the writers of the Bible were idiots. I do not expect you or him to agree with my belief< I simply reject his determination that people who believe what he does not are idiots.

Only if the bottles are inferior in the first place. I have recycled wine bottles for years when making wine at home, and beer bottles as well. Actually, I don't think the Hebrews used bottles much. They used wine skins and clay containers, because early glass containers were to delicate. The Romans did make glass containers and the wine was poured into it for fancy events.

Most English versions use 'bottles" the word is skins it is not speaking of glass bottles.

 

[Eileen]

I am not arguing this I am responding to 'gnostic's post stating the writers of scriptures are idiots.