-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the divide between Science and Religion...
- Thread starter Ulver
- Start date
I sorta figured that. A lot of people believe Genesis 1-9 to be allegorical, so you're not alone on that. I think James Dobson is in that category too.michel said:I think the 'Adam and Eve' scenario not to be a literall one - for a variety of reasons; and yes, I believe that the 'original sin' is our propensity to choice.*hides under Feather's kitchen table, collander and all*
I think we should interpret the Bible literally, unless the context states otherwise: like God having feathers - (Psalm 91:4). But then, come to think of it, even that is taking it literally as one would be paying respect to the context.michel said:Does that disappoint you ? - do you think it 'wrong' of me to see things that way?
It wouldn't be logical to do otherwise. After all, if we treated the phone book like we do the Holy Book, well ...michel said:I respect your wishes, and if that is something you feel the need to do, then who am I to tell you otherwise? Faith is a very personal subject.
If YOU were facing surgery, would you want your doctor to treat his medical documentation like some of us treat Scripture?
If I had a doctor whose medical documentation was of the same quality as Scripture I would dump the charlatan and find a competent doctor.AV1611 said:
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Why is scripture=phone book? Why not scripture=fairy tale?
Do you believe the depiction of the whore of Babylon? Do you believe proverbs literally happened? Do you believe in a large animal with many heads coming from the water in Revelation?
"It's only logical"? There's no such thing as a purely logical conclusion (except about logic). Logic gets you from point A to point B, and you've not stated which Point A concludes with a literal Bible. Certainly not the one that compares the claims about reality to reality itself.
Fatmop
Active Member
II Kings 2:23-24
"[The prophet Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
Since you take the Bible literally, AV1611, this story must make you sick. Little children - perhaps before the "age of accountability" - being torn to pieces by bears for making fun of a prophet? Your god doesn't sound like the kind of guy I would want to hang around with.
"[The prophet Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
Since you take the Bible literally, AV1611, this story must make you sick. Little children - perhaps before the "age of accountability" - being torn to pieces by bears for making fun of a prophet? Your god doesn't sound like the kind of guy I would want to hang around with.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
But you don't know what valuebale lesson God may have taught those children in mauling them to death. That wlil learn them some.
Plus, let's face it, no one would follow the Biblical pamphlet. We can repeat the same things over and over (laws in exodus to deut to numbers), and we can retel some of the same stories (just replace "elijia" with "Jesus"), but somewhere we need to find some filler material. Those kids dying filled 1/10th of a page. Surely a worthy cause.
Plus, let's face it, no one would follow the Biblical pamphlet. We can repeat the same things over and over (laws in exodus to deut to numbers), and we can retel some of the same stories (just replace "elijia" with "Jesus"), but somewhere we need to find some filler material. Those kids dying filled 1/10th of a page. Surely a worthy cause.
Fatmop
Active Member
That'll learn 'em indeed. One of my younger brothers is convinced that our youngest brother just doesn't seem to learn some lessons, so he gets punched. Brother C (youngest) has autism to a slight degree (asthberger's or something) and is scrawny by most standards; brother B (middle) plays football and must equal three times brother C's weight.
Brother C acts in a manner annoying to brother B.
Brother B hits brother C.
Has brother C learned anything?
In my experience, no. Or if he has, it's been a negative - that everyone is bigger than him and he deserves to be beaten up. Mom's told stories of brother C being pushed into lockers, etc. But violence seems to be a common religious conservative response to problems, ranging from terrorism to current American foreign policy. "Hey, let's bomb Afghanistan until you can't tell the difference between a house and a hamburger. That'll learn those terrorists!" "Hey, let's fly a plane into the world trade center. That'll learn those American pigs!"
Brother C acts in a manner annoying to brother B.
Brother B hits brother C.
Has brother C learned anything?
In my experience, no. Or if he has, it's been a negative - that everyone is bigger than him and he deserves to be beaten up. Mom's told stories of brother C being pushed into lockers, etc. But violence seems to be a common religious conservative response to problems, ranging from terrorism to current American foreign policy. "Hey, let's bomb Afghanistan until you can't tell the difference between a house and a hamburger. That'll learn those terrorists!" "Hey, let's fly a plane into the world trade center. That'll learn those American pigs!"
gnomon
Well-Known Member
If I may step in with something I've always wondered about is how is it that the question, from the title, can honestly be phrased as a divide between science and religion when science is not even a belief system. A religion is a belief system primarily concerned with a specific cosmology and a described set of rituals and dogma. Science is nothing more than systemized knowledge. The differnece is not one of semantics but a fundamental one of definition.
Considering that the Church authority in the Western world embraced science, historically, along with belief into their religion shows that it is more of a question of what one knows vs. what one believes. The divide arose when knowledge replaced belief and that knowledge challenged the dogma of belief. When this challenged dogma is core to the philosophy of the church then any knowledge contrary or contradictory challenges authority and the individuals perception of their own belief. For some this can be a question of their own sanity.
But to state science v. religion is rather misleading. If one was to list all of the currently accepted schools of scientific thought and determine which ones are currently rejected by currently established dogma then there may not seem to be much conflict because once again, science is not a belief system but rather observations of the natural world.
Considering that the Church authority in the Western world embraced science, historically, along with belief into their religion shows that it is more of a question of what one knows vs. what one believes. The divide arose when knowledge replaced belief and that knowledge challenged the dogma of belief. When this challenged dogma is core to the philosophy of the church then any knowledge contrary or contradictory challenges authority and the individuals perception of their own belief. For some this can be a question of their own sanity.
But to state science v. religion is rather misleading. If one was to list all of the currently accepted schools of scientific thought and determine which ones are currently rejected by currently established dogma then there may not seem to be much conflict because once again, science is not a belief system but rather observations of the natural world.
ChrisP
Veteran Member
You know I hate to disagree p ) but... I believeScience is as much a belief system as religion is.
Religion to me is any central idea or belief, that gives an individual or groups' life purpose or meaning.
So by that logic I would classify Science as the religion of the physical.
I guess it comes down to what makes something a religion.
p ) but... I believeScience is as much a belief system as religion is. Religion to me is any central idea or belief, that gives an individual or groups' life purpose or meaning.
So by that logic I would classify Science as the religion of the physical.
I guess it comes down to what makes something a religion.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Drugs give many people a meaning to life. I would hardly count an addiction as a religion. Religions are specifically defined by a cosmological belief. Not just a standard set of mores. Or else even Bingo Night at the Country Kitchen Buffett becomes a religion.SnaleSpace said:You know I hate to disagree
Religion to me is any central idea or belief, that gives an individual or groups' life purpose or meaning.
So by that logic I would classify Science as the religion of the physical.
I guess it comes down to what makes something a religion.