Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

[Shadow Wolf]

I stopped at the very first reply. Scientist would laugh at that answer. The very first life they have no answer too. Life begats life but you have to have life even before asexual reproduction can begin. HUMANS show no sign or evidence of such a thing.

No, they'd agree with as asexual reproduction came before sexual reproduction.

 

[Valjean]

Anything which involves the very first life and how humans need two one of each male and female to procreate.
Why try to provocation when you it is really obvious. Are you saying you have never come across the most important question science cannot answer?

What is this most important question, and why can't science answer it?

Science not having an answer.

How does science not having an answer to something verify anything? "I don't know so...Goddidit!"
Do you know what a false dilemma is?

Gods words come to pass as they are doing right now. DID you know that the one monetary union was foretold years before it happened? You see you have to look at everything everywhere and not just what you want your beliefs to fit into.

Huh? What are you trying to say, here?

I think you need to be able to answer from a personal understanding and view point instead of just repeating what you have read which has been written by others. After all, Christine you don't want to make anything you say look foolish because you have no personal back up.

What the heck's a "personal understanding?" How is it evidence of anything? People have always had personal understandings of things -- and they all disagreed with each other. Most have long since been dropped. What makes your particular doctrine authoritative?

 

[Valjean]

Keep up with the times. We answered questions posed at the beginning of the thread. You need to study the bible, science and also not repeat what you have read elsewhere. Being an atheist does not make you right, or repeating what other useless arguments atheist have made. Good Luck finding something new to say.[/QUOTE]Keep up with the times by studying the writings of ancients who thought the Earth was flat?
The Bible's an anthology of folklore full of contradictions, factual errors and revisions. Why do you believe it contains any reliable scientific insights?

What questions did you answer at the beginning of the thread?
Where are we in disagreement?
What am I mindlessly repeating?
What am I not right about?
What useless arguments do atheists make?

 

[Valjean]

I stopped at the very first reply. Scientist would laugh at that answer. The very first life they have no answer too. Life begats life but you have to have life even before asexual reproduction can begin. HUMANS show no sign or evidence of such a thing.

What are you talking about? Sexual reproduction is a new thing. The original, single celled organisms didn't have sexes; they still don't.
Are you talking about abiogenesis? Creationists always fall back on whatever phenomenon is at the current cutting edge of scientific inquiry, and try to use it as evidence of God. It's been happening for ages -- and the goalpost keeps moving as science advances. How is abiogenesis any different?

"HUMANS" show no sign of what?

Religion posits magic poofing as a reasonable "explanation." Science sees nothing reasonable in magic, nor any explanations.

 

[Shakeel]

If you are supposed to believe, literally, that God hates gay people, and science can show that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and unalterable shade of human sexuality, then what are you supposed to do about that?

That has nothing to do with science. That's just an opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That has nothing to do with science. That's just an opinion.

Are you sure? Have you contacted the American Psychological Association? Or is yours just a religious opinion? Seventh Century opinion, in fact.

 

[Shakeel]

Are you sure? Have you contacted the American Psychological Association? Or is yours just a religious opinion? Seventh Century opinion, in fact.

Is the American psychological association science itself or? You can call it an opinion. No problem. Problem would be calling what you said, a fact.

 

[ChristineM]

That has nothing to do with science. That's just an opinion.

Wrong

The 'Gay Gene' Is A Myth But Being Gay Is 'Natural,' Say Scientists

The 'Gay Gene' Is A Myth But Being Gay Is 'Natural,' Say Scientists

Its old but relevant

 

[Fallen Prophet]

1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

I suppose for the same reason that scientific people are "afraid" of religion - they don't understand it.

2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?

No.

3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?

No.

4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

Neither.

 

[Valjean]

I suppose for the same reason that scientific people are "afraid" of religion - they don't understand it.

Scientific people are afraid of religion? Why? It has no impact on their lives.
I think most 'scientific people' pretty much ignore religion.

Conscious thoughts said: ↑
IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?

No.

Most scientific types and atheists don't claim God can't exist, just that there's currently no good evidence of a god. Most non-believers are simply deferring belief, pending evidence, like they do with unicorns or LGM.

 

[osgart]

Maybe this question comes as a "shock" to someone that i ask since i am known for not trusting science
(meaning i am not afraid of science, just not see it as a valid way to answer certain questions)

But here we go...
1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?
2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?
3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?
4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

1) they are afraid that intricate, convoluted explanations that science gives will defeat people from even trying to understand reality, and ask ultimate questions on their own.

2) No, science offers plenty of information that theists can hang their hat on. It's not about evidence rather it's about what can be inferred from evidence and logical reasoning.

3) God as defined by major religions can be refuted. But there are valid mysteries that have no strictly empirical explanations.

4) science is about the material world, and physical behaviours. In order to find God you would have to reason from facts that science gives. But you must go beyond science to get an answer. All religions would fall away, and nothing would be assumed about a discovered God.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Scientific people are afraid of religion? Why? It has no impact on their lives.

Of course we are speaking in generalities - nothing I say should be considered a statement about "all scientific people".

Although - I do find that distinction to be incorrect - since people of faith can also be members of the scientific community - but for the sake of argument.

I believe that the idea that there are people in the world that will believe something without verifiable proof - and that they may be willing to die for it - scares them.

They do not understand what it means to live according to faith - instead of sight.

I think most 'scientific people' pretty much ignore religion.

I disagree. Everyone has their biases and opinions. One's occupation does not make them immune.

Besides - politics and secularism are new forms of religion - so no one is safe!

Most scientific types and atheists don't claim God can't exist, just that there's currently no good evidence of a god.

I cannot confirm or deny if "most" do not - but I have definitely seen many who claim that lack of evidence is proof of His not existing.

Most non-believers are simply deferring belief, pending evidence, like they do with unicorns or LGM.

Or they are having personal experiences - caused by their obedience to commandments and application of faith - that buoy them up against half-assed arguments and the lack of evidence.

What's LGM?

 

[Valjean]

I believe that the idea that there are people in the world that will believe something without verifiable proof - and that they may be willing to die for it - scares them.

I could see this if there were something physically or psychologically threatening about religious delusion. In my part of the world, though, there is little religious persecution, and conversion by the sword is all out. So where's the threat?
"Scientific types" are usually pretty secure in their beliefs, since they're generally well evidenced. Nor do they usually live by their beliefs; their ego-identities aren't invested in them.
We're all aware of how all-consuming faith can be, but, usually, we find this perplexing; even astonishing, not threatening.


I think cognitive fear is more typical of the religious. They do often live by their beliefs; their ego-identity is invested in their particular world-view, and membership in their status communities depends on a certain doctrinal orthodoxy. Their houses are built of straw -- and they feel it.

They do not understand what it means to live according to faith - instead of sight.

1. How would this create fear?
2. If anyone understands religiosity, it would be those who study it: anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, &c, ie: scientific types.
The religious may feel it, but it's the scientists who understand it.

I disagree. Everyone has their biases and opinions. One's occupation does not make them immune.

True, but a belief that religion is unevidenced doesn't usually affect a scientific type's occupation, just his opinion of the religious type's reasoning ability. There's no threat; no fear.

Besides - politics and secularism are new forms of religion - so no one is safe!

Politics? Maybe. For some, politics is a belief or set of beliefs that manifest an ethic -- ie: a religion -- but secularism? -- I'm not even sure what that means; freedom from religious influence?
Clarify, please.

I cannot confirm or deny if "most" do not - but I have definitely seen many who claim that lack of evidence is proof of His not existing.

Yeah, I've seen that, too -- an embarrassment to the 'scientific type' community.
Some people don't understand logic or the concept of 'proof' very well. I wouldn't conclude that that was typical of the intellectual community, though.

Or they are having personal experiences - caused by their obedience to commandments and application of faith - that buoy them up against half-assed arguments and the lack of evidence.

Not following -- clarify?

What's LGM?

LOL -- you need to brush up on your sci-fi.
LGM = little green men -- often seen emerging from UFOs; not to be confused with BEMs, the much scarier bug eyed monsters sometimes encountered on dark and rainy nights.

 

[actsfourthirty]

Maybe this question comes as a "shock" to someone that i ask since i am known for not trusting science
(meaning i am not afraid of science, just not see it as a valid way to answer certain questions)

But here we go...
1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?
2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?
3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?
4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

not afraid
Religion invented science
Most scientists of the past were Christians pasture for example
Many were priests including the originator of the Big Bang and the oldest daily observatories are at monasteries

Only keep science in its place
It’s the study of the known physical universe
Stay out of origins or spiritual matters and it’s ok no phony excuses for atheism either (no evolution)

 

[Valjean]

not afraid
Religion invented science
Most scientists of the past were Christians pasture for example
Many were priests including the originator of the Big Bang and the oldest daily observatories are at monasteries

Only keep science in its place
It’s the study of the known physical universe
Stay out of origins or spiritual matters and it’s ok no phony excuses for atheism either (no evolution)

Religion suppressed new ideas, questioning and experimentation for many years. It opposed science. Anything questioning church doctrine was heresy.

I understand non-overlapping magesteria, but it's not science trespassing on religion's turf. It's religion making unsupported, ontological claims about origins, evolution, &c; -- ie: tangible, testable, falsifiable claims of fact, the domain of science.

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia