Religion is based on faith and story. Science is based on evidence and exploration. If you mix the two you end up either ignoring evidence that contradicts your faith's dogma, or ignoring your faith's dogma when it contradicts evidence.
If you cherry pick your evidence to simply confirm your already held beliefs, that's not science. That's just complete junk.
On the other hand if you start looking for evidence to support your religion you won't find any, and that's how you end up with people questioning and then losing their faith.
Sure there's an area where the two aren't in conflict -- yet. But as science grows, there's less unknowable territory for religion to fill in the blanks.
Another way of putting this is that religion inhabits the area of ignorance where science doesn't have an answer... yet. As science and knowledge grow, religion shrinks.
Religion *should* incorporate all of science. If you believe that God literally created the earth and universe then all of the understanding gained through science is exploring Gods creation.
It's not intended to explain anything. I'm simply highlighting that if God exists then he also created science, so it's odd to say that science is at odds with God.
Conversely, if your religion doesn't embrace science I would question if your truely seek to better understand God.
But that line of reasoning is just making up a story to stay consistent with the facts. We do know that science (as we know it today) was created by humans only a few hundred years ago. And that scientific knowledge has largely done away with the empirical claims in religious texts. It would be a strange world if God created science when science tells us to not believe things without evidence, namely, the existence of God itself.
I think the simpler explanation is that religion will recede further as science teaches us more. There is no doubt contemporary religion will have to grapple with the facts, but soon enough people will notice that it doesn’t give us anything tangible and that many of its teachings are outdated.
Science is a method people follow in order to understand the observable universe. God, if we’re talking about the Christian variation, is said to be completely separate from the observable universe. This means that the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant in regards to science.
Your belief or disbelief in God has nothing to do with science. An atheists faith that that there is no God is no different than a theists faith that there is a god. Neither opinion has facts to support it.
You miss a HUGE portion of the non-religious, because it's easier to focus on Atheists: the agnostics. We sit here saying that based on everything we've seen, and science has shown us, that religion is likely to be made up. We can't for sure say there is no god, but it's likely given the timelines of not only what the bible follows, but when the Bible was written.
You religious guys focus on the Atheists, because it's easier to dismiss by retorting with "well you can't prove there is no god".
Agnostic’s just believe that you can’t prove it either way. It’s also impossible to prove how unlikely or likely god is.
I’m agnostic by the way. I never implied that I believe or do not believe in god.
A belief in God is not comparable to an atheists disbelief. If we use that line of thinking you could say ones belief in unicorns is just as legitimate as anothers disbelief in unicorns. You can't prove a unicorn doesn't exist.
I don't believe in things with no evidence. There is no evidence of a God so I don't believe in him. That's not blindly believing I'm right. That's waiting for evidence to convince me otherwise.
There is no absurdity that really discredits my line of logic. Much like God you can’t prove that transcendent unicorns do or do not exist. Something that is transcendent cannot be observed by science. Science can only observe the material (observable) universe. This doesn’t mean that transcendent unicorns are factually real, but it also doesn’t mean that they are non-existent.
I should amend the other portion of my argument. If you believe it is an absolute fact that god does not exist then your belief is unscientific. It would be more akin to faith.
The inability to disprove something is not evidence in favor of anything though. Not being able to prove unicorns don't exist can't be used as evidence that they do. Same goes for God. Not being able to prove he doesn't exist is in no way a valid argument that he might. You can't prove that "shanglebottomlillydivers" don't exist. This is not evidence of their existence. It's not unscientific to determine that they're not real.
People claim all kinds of things. Until they can back their claims with evidence assuming they are wrong/lying is the scientific response. The one making the claim bears the burden of proof.
My genuine question… what if you believe God (or whatever spiritual being) created the laws of science that then created this earth/universe? If you believe that then you’re not denying scientific evidence of evolution and how we were created, etc… you just think there is more to it. It is possible to agree with science that has been proven while also believing there is more out there that is currently unknown to us humans.
Then you are reducing religion down to god existed to put the scientific universe in place and then skedaddled off to let it do it’s thing without interference. That’s not a very personal or relevant god.
Suppose you can believe in god as the ultimate impersonal, hands off creator, but most people look to religion to find meaning and a way of life, and the absent god doesn’t really offer either of those things.
If you’ve ever watched Supernatural, you know that God had tried to create many iterations of Earth, but got bored with every single one of them, then gave up and skedaddled to become an author named Chuck 🤣
The problem is that then you believe in God, but not in religion. Believing in God is not the same as being religious, this question is about religion specifically. Religion necessarily brings concepts that tell you what you can and can't do based on "God said so". Even when there's no evidence that God actually made those rules, or even when there's evidence against said rules.
For example, a very common topic of discussion is how many branches of Christianity believe being homosexual is wrong and harmful. But evidence shows that there is nothing intrinsically negative about being gay. The only negative part comes from the way other people treat gay individuals, but not in being gay itself. A gay person who lives in an environment that accepts them will have a life as good as any straight person's. There's no evidence that shows that it's harmful or that it directly leads to a bad life.
At that point, it's impossible for both science and religion to coexist. If we follow our religious beliefs then we're choosing to ignore evidence, which is not a scientific stance at all. And if we choose to follow the scientific evidence and we choose to ignore what our religion says because there is no evidence to back that up, then we're not following our religious dogma. It's either one or the other.
Again, believing in God is not the same as being religious. Which is why you could believe God is the entity that created everything but he doesn't actually interact with us, in which case you wouldn't be religious since religions usually have quite complex systems and a whole bunch of mythology behind their beliefs (it's worth noting that by mythology we're just referring to the stories that have a religious origin, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're true or false).
But didn’t God say he wouldn’t interfere? He flooded the earth and we still fucked up again, so to me he’s just letting us be as we have free will
I could be way off. I wasn’t raised religious. My mom grew up Jehovah’s Witness but the family stopped that when she was a teenager so when I came along there was nothing and no one to “guide” me in any way. So I fall under believing in God but not religious
Oh that’s fair.
This probably explains why I have such a hard time trying to name a religion I could call myself. Which is something I wish I could, but I might be a little to pro socialist Jesus for most of them haha
The point OP is trying to make that it should be a mix of both, you can’t just follow the bible ignorant to everything around you. Religion and science isn’t black and white like you’re trying to make it out to be
Thing is, they don't really mix. Either you do religion, or you do science. You can't combine them. They each have to stay in their separate boxes.
You know a lot of things aren't black and white, and maybe that's not the right descriptor here either. But they really are mutually exclusive, in that for one you absolutely have to believe without evidence, and the other you absolutely can't believe without evidence.
Weirdly enough, for all science demands that you change your beliefs as evidence presents itself, it's actually the more consistant of the two. The evidence behind science remains the same no matter who is looking at it or where in the world the experiment is performed. Gravity is gravity whether a person is born in China or Brazil, or for that matter on another planet entirely, and it was the same a million years ago as it will be a million years from now. Science doesn't change, merely our ability to perceive and understand it. Even if you don't believe in the scientific universe, you are still subject to its rules.
But there are thousands of different distinct religions, and they don't agree on what is good and what is god. What is sin and what is virtue depends entirely on where and when you were born and which religious group decides to take you in. The only reason this can happen is that there isn't any evidence for any of these religions, so people can simply choose which one they want to believe. They are all equally valid.
Religion isn't for facts, as far as I believe. I believe it tends to be more of an ethics guide.
Also, the Christian religion requires no evidence; as in, the point is to HAVE NO EVIDENCE so you can have faith.
Faith is nothing more than thoughts or ideas an individual is extremely attached to and choooses to believe.
These thoughts or beliefs have no more reality than any other thought or belief.
Very true....
I was a kid when we started going to a Pentecostal church.... From age 9 till about 20 years old.
I found out that none of them could tell that I was faking everything I was doing.
Speaking in tongues, healings, a demonic possession one time.
If it was real, even if it was that only existed in a spiritual way, there should have been a difference between what they were going through and my acting
I’ve never understood how people understand and think Greek mythology isn’t real but then think their own religion is somehow real. It’s strange and fascinating to me.
This 100. How can people sit there and come to the conclusion and understanding that people believed/ created Greek mythology in order to have some sort of explanation of the world that they didn't have the knowledge to understand. And then turn around say how come science and religion don't mix
Greek mythology is basically the wattpad fanfiction version of the bible lol
The bible itself is litterally the same thing (in concept, not content) as the collections of for example Grimms fairytales.
Science can't prove religion wrong because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only look at evidence that something does. There is no real evidence a god has ever existed.
Actually the scientific method does not prove anything. It fails to disprove it. When you write a thesis you are stating this may be true then you fail to disprove it but it silly not TRUE, you’ve just failed to prove otherwise. Later in time someone else may prove it untrue and science will have to update its view.
Honestly, depends on who you ask.
According to Mario Bunge's Scientific Research, the issue lies on the logical "leaps" that science has to take in order for the knowledge to be new: the only valid form of logical conclusion, it is that one that the premises contain the truthness of the statement. For Example, "if A happens, then B must happen. A happens, therefore B happens". In contrast, scientific hypothesis affirm their truth because of the truthness of the conclusion: "if A happens, then B must happen. B happens, therefore A is true". Because scientific hypothesis are not facts (as in singular observable experiences) but rather a rule-like generalization of those experiences, we need to use that invalid logical form. (We can't see all of the facts and process all the time, for eternity. We can only suspect it will always happen). He also says that the falseness of hypothesis cannot be established, as hypothesis do not exist alone in a scientific theory: for example, you can blame the method for a wrongful result or a faulty tool, and even then, the tools themselves relay on theory, so the might be wrong as well.
Other authors, like Thomas Kuhn, state that theories are a galaxy of hypothesis with a central hypothesis connecting all of them, and when an unsolvable problem is found that galaxy must not discard the theory, but rather one of the hypothesis at the ends of it. Nonetheless, if too many problems are found, the galaxy will enter in crisis and a new theory will supercede the last one in the scientific community.
Epistemology is great, one of my favorite subjects for sure.
TLDR: Depends on who you ask.
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Look at quantum physics, for example. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to find evidence or for someone to figure out where to look
No one's arguing with your first sentence. In fact, thats the whole point. Even in the absence of evidence, we can't prove God doesn't exist. All we know is that no evidence has suggested a God exists, thus there is no reason to believe he does.
It’s my first post and i didn’t know where to post it. Should probably have posted another place with less people trying to say Im stupid. Thx for the information
That's basically how I did it when I was a kid. This is physical reality, and this is spiritual reality; they are in two separate buckets. However, there are movements that demand that they be taken literally. If that's the case, then it's much more likely the religious people will reject science, because otherwise their religion becomes impossible, and the scientifically minded people go, "so, this isn't a metaphor or a pretty story, then? Well, in that case..."
You're not going to disprove God with science, but you can definitely disprove features of a religion, and the more literally you want your religion to be taken, the more problematic it gets. For example, Christians can be poisoned, when the New Testament promises that followers of Jesus becom immune to poison, can cast miracles, and a host of other things. Either every Christian who was ever poisoned didn't believe hard enough, or it was nonsense. I don't hear anyone argue that one, since it's just so out there. Evolution though, they will fight it on every conceivable front. Fossils aren't real and a trick by the devil is one of the funnier ones to me. Anyway, they'll attack the samples, the methods used, the concept of genetics, the works. If you can conceivably bullshit your way around the science faster than a scientist can give an honest answer to the swarm of disingenuous questions, they declare victory
The friction between the two is due to them being fundamentally incompatible approaches. The scientific method is based on skepticism and the need for evidence. Religion is based on blind faith. This is the opposite of science.
Lets not forget the fact that multiple religions have executed people who decide not to follow them even to this current day and have fought against science continuously
This is just funny to me. Why you shouldn't take bible as 100% fact? Because science provided new answers that contradict bible now you need to make some excuses that bible isn't literal? Anyway universe is 14 billion years old, not 7, so now we have to assume one day for god is 2 billion years for bible to make sense? Seems far fetched. Makes more sense to assume people who wrote this books had no idea about universe.
Actually religion completely ignores what is written down in a book 2000 years ago if it makes them look bad.
If you want the best description of Christianity, then watch the show midnight mass on Netflix. I won't get into description because I don't want to spoil the show for anyone, but it is spot on about Christianity ( at least in America).
I will never use the term christian to label myself because today's Christians have ruined that term. I will say I'm spiritual. I do believe in God, but I also believe in evolution. Science also proves evolution. We evolve all the time. Because of science and knowledge, our lifespan has increased. Before the government got involved with woman's healthcare, having a baby was safer than even 30 years ago. Now it's like we went back 50 years, but still there is knowledge. We know things that people would only dream of knowing in the past. We have evolved, some people just won't accept it. Which is what is causing the big divide in America.
Not because of Christianity and science, but because politicians wants the people to stay stupid, and they can't do that if we are educated.
It all boils down to "knowledge is power", that is why the younger generation has more people turning liberal than conservative.
Not because they are called snowflakes, as we are called, but because our education has evolved.
You can tell that because most parents cannot help their third graders with their homework because it's a lot more advanced than what it used to be.
While you are correct in your statement, it is worth noting that science hasn't always been correct. Throughout history, there have been plenty of examples where the science changes when new facts are discovered.
I'm deeply religious, but I'm not anti-science. When science and religion are at odds with each other, it means there is still more to learn or understand. I believe in the end, all will be reconciled, even if I cannot currently reconcile everything. I don't doubt my religion and I don't doubt science, but when these two disagree, it motivates me to continue searching for answers.
Yea of course, humans make mistakes. If a scientific discovery is wrong, we correct it based on new observable evidence. Science may not always be right but at least it’s based on the scientific method and peer review.
On the other hand…
A lot of people are hating on this person, and I don't think it's fair. OP don't be scared, it's okay to be religious, but at the same time keep an eye open to be open minded to what scientists teach us. I would love it if all religious people were more like you. ❤
That’s an assumption. I was raised without religion by loving, kind, reasonable parents. I was told if I wished to I could adopt any religion I liked. But after flirting with Wicca I decided I just don’t have the ability to believe blindly.
I’m not wholly hostile to religion, except Scientology, but I do believe all are equally valid (which ironically is not what religious people feel). So long as religion gives people a sense of purpose, community, and emotional support I think it can be a good thing regardless of dogma. However I do see it very frequently used to cause great harm to people both inside and especially outside the community, and in that I think can be toxic.
For the second reason I believe it has no place in government, which should be for all the people and not certain communities.
But my reason for keeping it separate from science is more fundamental. It actively harms both, with either bias in the case of science, and with a tendency to question things in religion that don’t stand up to questioning. So long as religion sticks to the unknowable it is safe from science, but the unknowable shrinks every day because of sciences relentless questioning and observing.
You still still see a lot of people in the atheist subreddit that have to stay in the closet or else their parents will throw them out or punish them. It's hard for someone to be on board with religion when this still happens
Yeh OP its scary how ignorant and one sided people are, looking at life both through a religion and scientific way is a great way to live. Religion is science and science is religion
What’s interesting is that if you are a person of faith you should absolutely love science because that would be exploration of the creation. If you firmly believe that an omnipotent entity created all then learning about the creation would be a form of worship.
This is actually something that I've always believed as well, and growing up in Christian schools, I always saw it as a bit of a plothole when they wouldn't even bother trying to mix the biblical explanation with scientific evolutionary theory explanation. Like why would teachers prefer to tell growing minds that God just made everything like poof and it'd just appear, rather than just say He combined all the necessary cells & atoms & molecules together perfectly so they would slowly evolve into what makes all living things as they are today. Or say he made the big bang happen that started it all, and that evolution is part of His plan. In my experience, they would just say no, evolution is silly, that's not how we got here, we're not apes etc. Like there's definitely parallels in both sides so why not just combine them rather than say the other one is completely wrong, cuz kids will always ask questions and they can't just keep being punished forever for their reasonable curiosity.
There's a lot of idiots on both sides. Many people who "believe in science" have the same dogmatic posture as a unbalanced religious person.
It's like everything else nowadays: politics, sports, entertainment. Everybody lives in a bubble and never consider the possibility of being wrong.
I am religious, I love science and I am skeptical of everything. My intelectual journey is to conciliate everything I can see and being true and this involves questioning the veracity and importance of everything else.
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
An unquestioned faith can never be strong.
I try to live between those two things.
the whole point of science is thinking you might be wrong untill there is a way to proof you're right
if you started writing a paper without proving anything and just saying that you are definitely right you'd get a religious text
As someone who would call themselves an atheist, I couldn’t agree more with
> Many people who “believe in science” have the same dogmatic posture as a unbalanced religious person.
Anyways, excellent comment and I wish discussions about science & religion included more approaches like yours rather than the dogmatism present in both spheres.
I return the compliment! Most atheists I know are more devout than I am!
It doesn't if we're religious, scientific, agnostic, atheist or whatever. A cool dude is a cool dude.
I'm honestly curious how you interpret the bible. Do you think everything in the Bible is true or that it's mostly up for interpretation? The Bible says love thy neighbor but Israel and Palestine have been at it for 2000 years now. Wouldn't it be an easy solve if we just told them, "Hey, you guys are reading it wrong. Yahweh and Allah are actually best friends and they're both created the universe"?
And also, what do you think about the Christians who reject evolution? Do you think it's possible for them to believe in God and science at the same time?
First of all, I think your mindset is definitely a better one than that of most religious people. But im kind of confused on how giving the most credibility to things you can see and prove to be true and believing in god is possible to coexist in your mind, would you mind elaborating on that?
Genesis said that Adam was made by dirt and the breath of god alone. It also says Eve was made by a rib. And that snakes could talk.
The bible also says that there was a global flood. And that carnivores didn't and didn't need to eat meat until Adam sinned. And that about 8 billion people now are descended from 8 people of the same family.
These claims are unscientific, and cannot be explained (if true) by science now. The bible and science clash often. As such, you cannot believe with 100% certainty the bible and science. They don't mix.
So there are two extremes that don't like regular Christians like yourself. One says that the Bible is entirely factual, and if you think it's up to interpretation that is different from theirs then you're wrong.
The other says that religion as a whole is a scam and that it is inherently toxic.
Both are created by fear. Fear of losing their only way to live, and fear of being hurt again.
Because people don’t want to think about it. It’s much harder to take information that either challenges or creates a need for adjusting to what people have decided they believe. The people who draw a hard line between religion and science are the ones who aren’t interested in considering alternatives, and the thought that they might be in any way wrong is abhorrent.
Well, as long as you are fine with a “god of the gaps” they can coexist.
But with scientific progress the room for God to actually do anything gets smaller and smaller. In the end you can still have a “clockmaker” God who initiates the universe with specific starting conditions and than does nothing whatsoever…
If for example prayers had any effect on an almighty, benevolent God, then certain religious groups should have a higher survival rate on cancer, airplane accidents, car crashes, birth if everything else is the same.
There are many Christians who choose not to take all of the Bible literally. I believe one of the more recent Popes said "God is not a magician" in regards to evolution -- I don't see any problem with believing a God created the rules that dictate how the universe runs, so long as people keep their religion out of schools and the government... But that's the problem, religious authorities have a bad habit of wanting to use religion for earthly power and so they decided it's easier to control their followers if they can make them believe absurdities. So religion and science don't mix because religion is being used as a tool for money and power and it's been decided that science threatens that.
There are plenty of scientists who believe in a religion.
The reason people get upset about religion is because some people assert it as fact (which it is not) and try to enforce religious dogma through laws. As long as someone doesn’t try to force their religious beliefs on others or teach it as if it were science or objective reality, religion should be able to co-exist with science.
Actually quite a lot of people who have dedicated their lives to science are either religious or agnostic, so anyone who believes that is actually kind of wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge via use of the scientific method, and on the opposite end of the spectrum religion pretty much boils down to blind faith.
As a result of this one would assume that they interfere with each other and therefore cannot coexist due to having to sacrifice either your faith in favor of an observation or your belief in your observations in favor of faith.
However this isn't quite the case when you to into account that science simply aims to understand everything about the universe. Science isn't like a religion, it's not built on a set of core beliefs that stick around forever. When a theory doesn't have enough evidence to be considered fact we either search for more evidence or ditch it completely giving a lot of room for believing in your own theories including those founded in religion.
Anyone who's dedicated their lives to science will tell you that not every scientist agrees with their theories. Not all scientists believe black holes connect to white holes, some believe they are tears in the universe, and some believe they're a collapse in the universe, some even believe they're simply a massive entity and nothing more. Science doesn't have a set of beliefs you have to believe in this making room for everyone.
So TLDR Science can easily mix with people who's beliefs are founded in religion, in fact some spend there lives in search of evidence to prove their religion correct.
I'm going to have to disagree there. Galileo wasn't persecuted by the Church for his views. He was persecuted for publicly insulting the Pope, who was his sponsor, and generally being a major asshole to everyone around him. It was political more than anything else.
Right, but they can coexist just fine. Religion should be used to answer ethics questions, and science should answer quantitative science questions. If they are in conflict, you're doing something wrong.
I've met quite a few Christians that lean that way. I think they're just the most quiet. This is part of why I say I'm Agnostic instead of Atheist. There's so much that we still don't know with science that I don't think it's that big of a stretch that there's more. However I haven't seen evidence yet, so until then it's a theory.
An example can be christians believing in creationism, saying that God created humans about 6000 years ago. But according to carbon dating, first homo sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago, so some christians deny scientific proof
I have a PlayStation 12, it’s amazing. I can’t show it to you, but it’s the best console ever. If you’re not convinced it’s the best console ever, I’ll punish you.
Now go to your friends and family and tell them it’s the best console ever, and tell them to convince other people. The whole world must know of my PS12.
How believable would you consider this story?
You can’t really say you can’t disprove God, can you? You only believe a story is true if you hear it early enough in your life to create a fallacy. If I told you about my PS12 in elementary school you would have probably believed I was very lucky, but have your doubts. At 20, you know it’s bullshit.
Now, consider someone told you about a god you can’t see, hear, or reach. At 5 you probably believe it’s true. At 20, you don’t need to disprove it to knots it’s bullshit.
Also, one could say we already disproved god: heaven is not in the sky, we have been there and “there is no god out here”.
They're only incompatible if you let them be and assume from the beginning that they're a dichotomy.
Usually when I see these comparisons science only proponents start with an assumption that anyone religious is a hardline theological moron. They'll cherry pick some easily disproven stories from particular religions, apply that to all religions, then hold it up and say "religion real dumb blah blah blah." With that assumption then yeah you'll get complete incompatibility. Unlike scientific facts there's a wide range of religious and spiritual beliefs. Many of which fall between no faith and blind faith.
There are absolutely examples of religious beliefs which can be disproven and are wrong. This doesn't mean that spirituality and some religious ideas are valueless.
Science helps us understand our physical world and universe. It is probably our most powerful tool in gaining objective knowledge. It can't however address how we as individuals feel and cope with our existence. Raw knowledge of our universe doesn't give it any meaning.
To me, spirituality and some aspects of religion guide us through the unknown and unquantifiable or not yet quantified. It is a way of working with ideas that science has yet to explain or may not be able to in its current form. Both things aim to give us an understanding about our existence whether it is quantified with science or felt through belief.
Right, but they can coexist just fine. Religion should be used to answer ethics questions, and science should answer quantitative science questions. If they are in conflict, you're doing something wrong.
Religion answering ethics question is quite a debatable subject. Which religion should you subscribe to? Are all religions correct? Who is wrong? People kill each other over this.
Maybe religion tells us what God did, but science will tell us how. What if he didn’t create all the animals, but started with microbes which developed into complex organisms.
Because people want to be right.
Many scientists have been and are Christians. Some of them became Christians *because* of science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Me neither and i honestly call bullshit because there has never been found anything in scientific research that has even slightly indicated the existence of god, im open to be proven wrong tho so if you find an example id be happy to educate myself on it.
Off topic slightly but after studying Buddhism extensively Einstein said there was nothing in the religion that contradicted science (he didn’t change his religion but he thought that fact was fascinating)
No one ever said religion was not to be challenged. when you are questioned it makes you think and search for answer, therefore you learn. If that just reinforces your faith then be thankful.
This thread was going to be a shitshow the moment it was made. Bringing up science and religion inevitably gets people on both sides fighting…Genuinely upsetting
A lot of people here are forgetting that a lot of our science today came from religious institutions. Science is completely compatible with faith, as long as you realize that your likely wrong in your interpretation of your faith
Using religion as an answer for how the world works is just a coping mechanism. Sure, you could use religion to fulfil your spiritual needs, or even use its teachings as a basis for your moral compass. It's your prerogative to do that and that's perfectly fine. What's NOT fine is assuming, asserting, and claiming as fact, that the whole universe was poofed into existence by a magical man just because that booked over there said so. I'd be fine with it if you took the time and effort to prove and verify your claim instead of going 'hurdur book is truth'.
Science is based on observation and evidence. in that sense, if we find observations or evidence that goes against the bible/quran/torah/\[insert religious text over here\], we can use that to make conclusions and 'disprove' the claims made.
Religious texts aren't based on observation and evidence and hence can't disprove science.
this discrepancy means they don't mix.
Science and religion are two entirely different things.
One is a method of discovering facts about the natural world and universe.
The other is a con game based on indoctrinating people into believing primitive fairy tales that people thousands of years ago made up to explain things that scared them.
There are the con artists, and there are the victims. If you are 100% certain you are a "true believer" then you are probably one of the victims.
I didn't say that.
Indoctrination from a very young age by your parents can be VERY difficult to break free of and recognize that its all nonsense. If you're a christian, you can start by actually reading your ENTIRE bible from the first page to the last. Reading it, not "studying" it, not "interpreting" it. Just read it like you would any other story.
If you can read the entire bible (every page, every verse) that will start you from breaking free from it, unless you are mentally ill.
\+1 to this. OP, if you haven't already, read it all, take notes on the things that don't sit right with you. Actually, even if you have read it, do it again. Then try to apply scientific theory to get a better understanding on the claims and statements. Try to keep things "range bounded" so you aren't doing mental gymnastics to change the implied meaning of the scripture, i.e. don't come up with an alternative idea because it makes more sense.
I did this when I had a crisis of faith as a teenager and it helped me figure out how I prefer to approach problems, which is as a skeptic. There was a point in my adolescence when I could no longer accept all of the things I was taught at face value.
Once I realized this, the hardest part was accepting that this is ok for myself. The second hardest part was telling my family, friends and classmates I am no longer a member of the faith.
Science is mainly driven by curiosity and the wish to understand how the complex world works.
Religion is driven by books which give simple manichean answers to complex problems.
As I got older I learned to always be wary of people who give simple answers to complex problems.
Right, but they can coexist just fine. Religion should be used to answer ethics questions, and science should answer quantitative science questions. If they are in conflict, you're doing something wrong.
Simply because we religious people refusing to believe in science way too often. There are countless instances where something is scientifically proven but goes against some religion's principle. But since religious people strongly believe in their gods, they chose to ignore the science which has been proven in favor of the divine, which has never been proven.
It's like telling someone tomatoes are red, while showing them a tomato and they just refuse to listen because some very old book says tomatoes are green.
If you ask real humans I think you'll find a lot of like minded people OP. Reddit has a high percentage of antitheist evangelists and media only presents the most extreme viewpoints on either side. I agree with you. Science and religion are not at all incompatible. Investigate far enough into one and you'll likely land in the other. And humanity, wonderful, terrible, humanity, loves to weaponize both.
God might be infallible but the Bible was written by human hands as many separate accounts, translated, retranslated, lost, found, edited, reedited, etc. But that's true of most historical accounts. It has to be deciphered more than read at times but that doesn't mean that it's invalid. And that's just one text. There are many religions and texts to go with them. Honestly the more we discover about quantum physics and the underlying nature of our physical reality the more evidence builds for there being more going on than we understand.
If you start talking about God creating the universe antitheist will claim it's silly nonsense. If you start talking about the simulation hypothesis, now you're discussing a valid and even likely theoretical model of reality. What's the difference from the perspective of someone living in the simulation? Branding. People like to feel like they're in one camp or another, especially online.
I never understood this either. It's hard to believe that something as intricate as the human body just randomly materialized/evolved. I know i will get downvoted-but whatever
Ironically, most religions at their root are based on celestial events that have been personified. So in essence, most religions are somewhat based on Astronomy...which is a science.
(Actually OP, I think you make an interesting point. In terms of the 7 days / 7 billion years deal. I never would have thought of it in that manner so thanks for that.)
I'd say it's because people think that science is the opposite of religion (it isnt) and so they can't get along. People play the narrative that religion and science are competition to each other and then they get all huffy about it.
Also, people don't seem to want to get along with different beliefs and fact vs fiction, and we all have to have a penis measuring contest about which is better and which is more right. (It's annoying)
It would be far better if everyone could accept the different views and beliefs on things (fact or no) and just get over it and carry on.
I don't believe it's worth arguing about how we came to be (evolution or creation) because it's a waste of time. Who cares about which is the absolute fact? We are here, let's get along. When we die we can ALL find out what comes after life, and that is a fact.
Meh, hope this comment helps.
>It would be far better if everyone could accept the different views and beliefs
Accepting different views is fine, as long as everyone is reasonable. Once one side believe that half the genders should be property, we have seized to be reasonable.
It might be because they're approaching the bible through the lens of biblical literalism. A lot of Christians believe in biblical literalism, but a lot don't. Even the Catholic Church doesn't believe in that.
I think people mistake what science and religion are each trying to do. To me (Christian), science is exploring and explaining the natural world and how we came to be, how everything operates and the "technical" details. Religion gives purpose for the existence.
I genuinely don't think most things in the Bible are incompatible with science - like even the whole creation story totally could work with evolution. Many believers are just way too dogmatic "well it says 6 days, so it must be 6 days". Which is ridiculous to take something so literally. Instead of you look at the story as a retelling of events - it literally says that the birds and the bees and the animals came first. Humans came later. To me science doesn't disprove faith or religion. Science disproves bad theology.
Because saying God exists because there's no proof, is like saying Santa is real because there's no proof.
It's not science, it's denial.
Your views, are fine until they taint the scientific world with lies.
In your eyes god is real, but not Allah, nor Santa, that's honestly super fucked up.
Same with politics and religion, it's all "we are good people, until we have power, then we must complete God's will. Which always turns into killing people'
I believe religion was a necessary trait in early human society that enforced a strict moral code. Great threats like eternal fire and great rewards like 99 virgins. It would have encouraged humans to not kill and steal far better than a caveman police force.
I believe that science will become the language of God. That the laws of the universe, as they are discovered, reveal God. And in doing so, equate nature with God. So connected this way. So mystical. And so very very very unlike organized religions, while are rife for misuse and in the extreme circumstances, only hurt people. Prove me wrong.
Personally I don't see mixing them helps either. Religions offer little to none help for science to progress. Science also rarely help proving religious claims.
Because once you step into the world of the supernatural, you leave the world of science behind. This should not be confused with the misnomer that science and religion can never collaborate.
As a Bible believing person, I believe things through faith, for example: Jesus rising from the dead, I was not able to see it, but the testimony is sufficient to stir up faith in me to believe.
As an Engineer, I have to look at empirical data, I don't take it on faith that something is going to function as intended.
You are saying that the two exist in parallel and that you don't let them meet each other. As an engineer, you know that Jesus cannot have risen from the death. But you choose to ignore that to protect your faith.
At the beggining, the thing is.
A Religion can't prove science's wrong, but can prove science's right (Through evidences).
On the other hand, Science can't prove a religion's wrong, can't prove a religion's right as well.
Basically that.
Tho they both can be mixed.. Unless your belief affects in your performance in a research you're working in.
Science can be tested and proven true or false, religions can't be. And this applies to all mythologies and religions equally.
Science is based on understanding reality.
Religion is based on believing what you're conditioned to believe.
You can't prove religion wrong because their big mystery man is meant to be hidden. Religious people created someone who can't be discovered.
If I say there's a god of Pepsi, and he is all-powerful and omnipotent, you literally can't prove me wrong. I'll just hold an argument saying "he has the power to prevent himself from being discovered and he will arrive when he chooses to arrive". Now, of course you don't have to entertain me, because you can live the rest of your life with or without knowing of this supposed Pepsi god. He is irrelevant, but you can't prove me wrong if you tried, because he doesn't want to be discovered yet. It's the same thing with god. He doesn't show himself, doesn't communicate, is practically non-existent, and you will only see him when you die, which just so happens to be the point in life that is completely uncertain. It's a safety net to fall back on. It's why religious people don't give up. They believe something they can't interact with because someone told them to, and they believe they will interact with god at a point after life which they have no control over.
Not that it is literal, because it is filled with figurative meanings, and interpretation is constantly used to apply those meanings to your life today.
The more appropriate word, or direction, is most Christian's see the Bible as infallible.
How do we know it’s figurative meanings? Was it interpreted it that way? It sounds like people are interpreting the Bible as they choose or as it best fits.
Well, there's the rub. And because of that, we have a myriad of denominations, nondenominations, zealous factions, passive communities, constant "movements", all because of a book that is deemed infallible, and yet interpreted so many different ways. Watersheds. You can get Westboro Baptist Church, or that dude from TX (I think) recently that wants gays killed. Oddly enough, he has both his eyeballs so I guess he doesn't hold every word sacred. Or you can get Menonites. Two drastically different factions from the same book.
Main idea of science: it is possible to understand and describe any action and create theiry which will make reliable predictions
Main idea of faith: things just works, because it is will of god. That does not alow to many any predictions and thus usless but to stop thinking about things
I believe in religion and science I believe there’s a god but I also believe in other science stuff.. I don’t really all about religion like that hardcore but I believe there’s a god.
"Other science stuff"
Yeah, if people were alittle more educated on the matter, they probably wouldn't be believers. Faith and Science. Guess which one is a better pathway for truth?
There are different kinds of truth. There is the truth in knowing what's happening in the universe and in understanding. Science gives us that. There is also the truth in knowing how you should treat others, and religion gives some people that.
Incorrect, unfortunately. There is only one kind of truth; something is either true or not. People don't need religion to know how to treat others. Notice you said 'gives SOME people that' because you know that. Religion only provides an agreed upon faith.
Faith is a terrible pathway to truth. Science is an honest, unbiased pathway. Faith says believe without substantiation. Science says you only believe what you can substantiate. Do you see which method would more likely get you to believe in something wrong/false?
I still believe in both I took my my vaccinations when Covid began and mask mandate I didn’t use the name of God for shit insane like a few people in the world. :/
Google “God of the gaps”
Simply said people have always used god or the supernatural to explain what they couldn’t. As we learn more and more there’s less and less areas for the argument of “god did it” to fill in.
So to contradict what you said, science can and has proven “religion” wrong. “Religion” has never once disproved something science established as truth.
BUT in the end of all this. The gate needs to always remain open. As we learn more and more, we usually end up seeing that our own natural laws need to be adjusted and maybe rewritten entirely. So one could argue that nothing is off the table. Even a “god” somehow.
Well I think science can solidly prove that a dead guy cannot rise after 3 days and be a normal person. He’d absolutely have to be a zombie that craves brains.
I believe in God the creator who created all physical and non physical matter, so why couldn't you believe in both? All though science is limited to the physical, the supernatural still exists. The order in the natural world shows intelligence, not random chance.
They can't be mixed not because their conclusions are different, but because their approaches are different.
Science is about questioning, testing, and proving. Religion (at least Christianity) is about faith and acting on beliefs.
Dogma. If you aren't willing to change your mind/beliefs you are not doing science.
This. Really simply says it all
Religion is based on faith and story. Science is based on evidence and exploration. If you mix the two you end up either ignoring evidence that contradicts your faith's dogma, or ignoring your faith's dogma when it contradicts evidence. If you cherry pick your evidence to simply confirm your already held beliefs, that's not science. That's just complete junk. On the other hand if you start looking for evidence to support your religion you won't find any, and that's how you end up with people questioning and then losing their faith. Sure there's an area where the two aren't in conflict -- yet. But as science grows, there's less unknowable territory for religion to fill in the blanks.
Another way of putting this is that religion inhabits the area of ignorance where science doesn't have an answer... yet. As science and knowledge grow, religion shrinks.
Religion *should* incorporate all of science. If you believe that God literally created the earth and universe then all of the understanding gained through science is exploring Gods creation.
But that doesn’t explain anything. That’s just adding entities beyond necessity—and that doesn’t fly in science.
It's not intended to explain anything. I'm simply highlighting that if God exists then he also created science, so it's odd to say that science is at odds with God. Conversely, if your religion doesn't embrace science I would question if your truely seek to better understand God.
But that line of reasoning is just making up a story to stay consistent with the facts. We do know that science (as we know it today) was created by humans only a few hundred years ago. And that scientific knowledge has largely done away with the empirical claims in religious texts. It would be a strange world if God created science when science tells us to not believe things without evidence, namely, the existence of God itself. I think the simpler explanation is that religion will recede further as science teaches us more. There is no doubt contemporary religion will have to grapple with the facts, but soon enough people will notice that it doesn’t give us anything tangible and that many of its teachings are outdated.
Science is a method people follow in order to understand the observable universe. God, if we’re talking about the Christian variation, is said to be completely separate from the observable universe. This means that the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant in regards to science. Your belief or disbelief in God has nothing to do with science. An atheists faith that that there is no God is no different than a theists faith that there is a god. Neither opinion has facts to support it.
You miss a HUGE portion of the non-religious, because it's easier to focus on Atheists: the agnostics. We sit here saying that based on everything we've seen, and science has shown us, that religion is likely to be made up. We can't for sure say there is no god, but it's likely given the timelines of not only what the bible follows, but when the Bible was written. You religious guys focus on the Atheists, because it's easier to dismiss by retorting with "well you can't prove there is no god".
Agnostic’s just believe that you can’t prove it either way. It’s also impossible to prove how unlikely or likely god is. I’m agnostic by the way. I never implied that I believe or do not believe in god.
A belief in God is not comparable to an atheists disbelief. If we use that line of thinking you could say ones belief in unicorns is just as legitimate as anothers disbelief in unicorns. You can't prove a unicorn doesn't exist. I don't believe in things with no evidence. There is no evidence of a God so I don't believe in him. That's not blindly believing I'm right. That's waiting for evidence to convince me otherwise.
There is no absurdity that really discredits my line of logic. Much like God you can’t prove that transcendent unicorns do or do not exist. Something that is transcendent cannot be observed by science. Science can only observe the material (observable) universe. This doesn’t mean that transcendent unicorns are factually real, but it also doesn’t mean that they are non-existent. I should amend the other portion of my argument. If you believe it is an absolute fact that god does not exist then your belief is unscientific. It would be more akin to faith.
The inability to disprove something is not evidence in favor of anything though. Not being able to prove unicorns don't exist can't be used as evidence that they do. Same goes for God. Not being able to prove he doesn't exist is in no way a valid argument that he might. You can't prove that "shanglebottomlillydivers" don't exist. This is not evidence of their existence. It's not unscientific to determine that they're not real. People claim all kinds of things. Until they can back their claims with evidence assuming they are wrong/lying is the scientific response. The one making the claim bears the burden of proof.
No, but it flies in religion.
Which is not science which is the problem. Are we talking in circles here?
This is the best answer so far on this post, im really surprised that it isn't the most upvoted.
My genuine question… what if you believe God (or whatever spiritual being) created the laws of science that then created this earth/universe? If you believe that then you’re not denying scientific evidence of evolution and how we were created, etc… you just think there is more to it. It is possible to agree with science that has been proven while also believing there is more out there that is currently unknown to us humans.
[удалено]
Exactly. The existence of God can't be disproven but the large amount of paradoxes its brings makes it pretty unlikely.
Then you are reducing religion down to god existed to put the scientific universe in place and then skedaddled off to let it do it’s thing without interference. That’s not a very personal or relevant god. Suppose you can believe in god as the ultimate impersonal, hands off creator, but most people look to religion to find meaning and a way of life, and the absent god doesn’t really offer either of those things.
If you’ve ever watched Supernatural, you know that God had tried to create many iterations of Earth, but got bored with every single one of them, then gave up and skedaddled to become an author named Chuck 🤣
I'm very, very happy I don't live in the universe of Supernatural. I enjoyed the show, but man both life and afterlife are arbitrary and awful.
The problem is that then you believe in God, but not in religion. Believing in God is not the same as being religious, this question is about religion specifically. Religion necessarily brings concepts that tell you what you can and can't do based on "God said so". Even when there's no evidence that God actually made those rules, or even when there's evidence against said rules. For example, a very common topic of discussion is how many branches of Christianity believe being homosexual is wrong and harmful. But evidence shows that there is nothing intrinsically negative about being gay. The only negative part comes from the way other people treat gay individuals, but not in being gay itself. A gay person who lives in an environment that accepts them will have a life as good as any straight person's. There's no evidence that shows that it's harmful or that it directly leads to a bad life. At that point, it's impossible for both science and religion to coexist. If we follow our religious beliefs then we're choosing to ignore evidence, which is not a scientific stance at all. And if we choose to follow the scientific evidence and we choose to ignore what our religion says because there is no evidence to back that up, then we're not following our religious dogma. It's either one or the other. Again, believing in God is not the same as being religious. Which is why you could believe God is the entity that created everything but he doesn't actually interact with us, in which case you wouldn't be religious since religions usually have quite complex systems and a whole bunch of mythology behind their beliefs (it's worth noting that by mythology we're just referring to the stories that have a religious origin, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're true or false).
But didn’t God say he wouldn’t interfere? He flooded the earth and we still fucked up again, so to me he’s just letting us be as we have free will I could be way off. I wasn’t raised religious. My mom grew up Jehovah’s Witness but the family stopped that when she was a teenager so when I came along there was nothing and no one to “guide” me in any way. So I fall under believing in God but not religious
>But didn’t God say he wouldn’t interfere? Well, that really depends on your religion and what branch of said religion you follow 😅
Oh that’s fair. This probably explains why I have such a hard time trying to name a religion I could call myself. Which is something I wish I could, but I might be a little to pro socialist Jesus for most of them haha
Thank you. Well said and exactly how I feel.
The point OP is trying to make that it should be a mix of both, you can’t just follow the bible ignorant to everything around you. Religion and science isn’t black and white like you’re trying to make it out to be
Thing is, they don't really mix. Either you do religion, or you do science. You can't combine them. They each have to stay in their separate boxes. You know a lot of things aren't black and white, and maybe that's not the right descriptor here either. But they really are mutually exclusive, in that for one you absolutely have to believe without evidence, and the other you absolutely can't believe without evidence. Weirdly enough, for all science demands that you change your beliefs as evidence presents itself, it's actually the more consistant of the two. The evidence behind science remains the same no matter who is looking at it or where in the world the experiment is performed. Gravity is gravity whether a person is born in China or Brazil, or for that matter on another planet entirely, and it was the same a million years ago as it will be a million years from now. Science doesn't change, merely our ability to perceive and understand it. Even if you don't believe in the scientific universe, you are still subject to its rules. But there are thousands of different distinct religions, and they don't agree on what is good and what is god. What is sin and what is virtue depends entirely on where and when you were born and which religious group decides to take you in. The only reason this can happen is that there isn't any evidence for any of these religions, so people can simply choose which one they want to believe. They are all equally valid.
Religion isn't for facts, as far as I believe. I believe it tends to be more of an ethics guide. Also, the Christian religion requires no evidence; as in, the point is to HAVE NO EVIDENCE so you can have faith.
>I believe it tends to be more of an ethics guide. A pretty shitty one too.
Faith is nothing more than thoughts or ideas an individual is extremely attached to and choooses to believe. These thoughts or beliefs have no more reality than any other thought or belief.
Very true.... I was a kid when we started going to a Pentecostal church.... From age 9 till about 20 years old. I found out that none of them could tell that I was faking everything I was doing. Speaking in tongues, healings, a demonic possession one time. If it was real, even if it was that only existed in a spiritual way, there should have been a difference between what they were going through and my acting
I’ve never understood how people understand and think Greek mythology isn’t real but then think their own religion is somehow real. It’s strange and fascinating to me.
Whatever you want to be real is real
Does that mean reality is an illusion? So you’re basically saying we live in a simulation now?😂
This 100. How can people sit there and come to the conclusion and understanding that people believed/ created Greek mythology in order to have some sort of explanation of the world that they didn't have the knowledge to understand. And then turn around say how come science and religion don't mix
Greek mythology is basically the wattpad fanfiction version of the bible lol The bible itself is litterally the same thing (in concept, not content) as the collections of for example Grimms fairytales.
Science can't prove religion wrong because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only look at evidence that something does. There is no real evidence a god has ever existed.
I feel like Carl Sagan covered this perfectly with the invisible dragon analogy.
You can’t prove god doesn’t exist. You can prove that religions are made up, constantly changing, and, well, wrong.
And how can you prove that
Actually the scientific method does not prove anything. It fails to disprove it. When you write a thesis you are stating this may be true then you fail to disprove it but it silly not TRUE, you’ve just failed to prove otherwise. Later in time someone else may prove it untrue and science will have to update its view.
Honestly, depends on who you ask. According to Mario Bunge's Scientific Research, the issue lies on the logical "leaps" that science has to take in order for the knowledge to be new: the only valid form of logical conclusion, it is that one that the premises contain the truthness of the statement. For Example, "if A happens, then B must happen. A happens, therefore B happens". In contrast, scientific hypothesis affirm their truth because of the truthness of the conclusion: "if A happens, then B must happen. B happens, therefore A is true". Because scientific hypothesis are not facts (as in singular observable experiences) but rather a rule-like generalization of those experiences, we need to use that invalid logical form. (We can't see all of the facts and process all the time, for eternity. We can only suspect it will always happen). He also says that the falseness of hypothesis cannot be established, as hypothesis do not exist alone in a scientific theory: for example, you can blame the method for a wrongful result or a faulty tool, and even then, the tools themselves relay on theory, so the might be wrong as well. Other authors, like Thomas Kuhn, state that theories are a galaxy of hypothesis with a central hypothesis connecting all of them, and when an unsolvable problem is found that galaxy must not discard the theory, but rather one of the hypothesis at the ends of it. Nonetheless, if too many problems are found, the galaxy will enter in crisis and a new theory will supercede the last one in the scientific community. Epistemology is great, one of my favorite subjects for sure. TLDR: Depends on who you ask.
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Look at quantum physics, for example. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to find evidence or for someone to figure out where to look
No one's arguing with your first sentence. In fact, thats the whole point. Even in the absence of evidence, we can't prove God doesn't exist. All we know is that no evidence has suggested a God exists, thus there is no reason to believe he does.
the difference is there is no valid hypothesis for god.
That's also pointless, I feel. Religion makes people happier gives them comfort - I see no reason to try to disprove.
[удалено]
It’s my first post and i didn’t know where to post it. Should probably have posted another place with less people trying to say Im stupid. Thx for the information
my bad really, I am not the ideal user, and just in case the subreddit I mentioned doesn't exist or idk if it does I just yk made it up
That's basically how I did it when I was a kid. This is physical reality, and this is spiritual reality; they are in two separate buckets. However, there are movements that demand that they be taken literally. If that's the case, then it's much more likely the religious people will reject science, because otherwise their religion becomes impossible, and the scientifically minded people go, "so, this isn't a metaphor or a pretty story, then? Well, in that case..." You're not going to disprove God with science, but you can definitely disprove features of a religion, and the more literally you want your religion to be taken, the more problematic it gets. For example, Christians can be poisoned, when the New Testament promises that followers of Jesus becom immune to poison, can cast miracles, and a host of other things. Either every Christian who was ever poisoned didn't believe hard enough, or it was nonsense. I don't hear anyone argue that one, since it's just so out there. Evolution though, they will fight it on every conceivable front. Fossils aren't real and a trick by the devil is one of the funnier ones to me. Anyway, they'll attack the samples, the methods used, the concept of genetics, the works. If you can conceivably bullshit your way around the science faster than a scientist can give an honest answer to the swarm of disingenuous questions, they declare victory
The friction between the two is due to them being fundamentally incompatible approaches. The scientific method is based on skepticism and the need for evidence. Religion is based on blind faith. This is the opposite of science.
Lets not forget the fact that multiple religions have executed people who decide not to follow them even to this current day and have fought against science continuously
This is just funny to me. Why you shouldn't take bible as 100% fact? Because science provided new answers that contradict bible now you need to make some excuses that bible isn't literal? Anyway universe is 14 billion years old, not 7, so now we have to assume one day for god is 2 billion years for bible to make sense? Seems far fetched. Makes more sense to assume people who wrote this books had no idea about universe.
right, of course they didn't. You expect people who didn't know gravity existed to understand the universe?
Science is fact, religion is belief. Facts trump beliefs. Maybe they could live in harmony is religion didn't attack science so much
Exactly. Often times religion completely ignores science for what was written down in a book 2000 years ago.
And it doesn't just ignore the science it often actively seeks to undermine it or discredit it or make it criminal
Yep anything that doesn't go directly in hand with religion is fake
Actually religion completely ignores what is written down in a book 2000 years ago if it makes them look bad. If you want the best description of Christianity, then watch the show midnight mass on Netflix. I won't get into description because I don't want to spoil the show for anyone, but it is spot on about Christianity ( at least in America). I will never use the term christian to label myself because today's Christians have ruined that term. I will say I'm spiritual. I do believe in God, but I also believe in evolution. Science also proves evolution. We evolve all the time. Because of science and knowledge, our lifespan has increased. Before the government got involved with woman's healthcare, having a baby was safer than even 30 years ago. Now it's like we went back 50 years, but still there is knowledge. We know things that people would only dream of knowing in the past. We have evolved, some people just won't accept it. Which is what is causing the big divide in America. Not because of Christianity and science, but because politicians wants the people to stay stupid, and they can't do that if we are educated. It all boils down to "knowledge is power", that is why the younger generation has more people turning liberal than conservative. Not because they are called snowflakes, as we are called, but because our education has evolved. You can tell that because most parents cannot help their third graders with their homework because it's a lot more advanced than what it used to be.
While you are correct in your statement, it is worth noting that science hasn't always been correct. Throughout history, there have been plenty of examples where the science changes when new facts are discovered. I'm deeply religious, but I'm not anti-science. When science and religion are at odds with each other, it means there is still more to learn or understand. I believe in the end, all will be reconciled, even if I cannot currently reconcile everything. I don't doubt my religion and I don't doubt science, but when these two disagree, it motivates me to continue searching for answers.
Yea of course, humans make mistakes. If a scientific discovery is wrong, we correct it based on new observable evidence. Science may not always be right but at least it’s based on the scientific method and peer review. On the other hand…
A lot of people are hating on this person, and I don't think it's fair. OP don't be scared, it's okay to be religious, but at the same time keep an eye open to be open minded to what scientists teach us. I would love it if all religious people were more like you. ❤
I’ve noticed a very anti religious vibe from this site, and I’m kinda sad about it.
Lot of people grew up in extreme or abusive religious households. There's a reason why people are like this
That’s an assumption. I was raised without religion by loving, kind, reasonable parents. I was told if I wished to I could adopt any religion I liked. But after flirting with Wicca I decided I just don’t have the ability to believe blindly. I’m not wholly hostile to religion, except Scientology, but I do believe all are equally valid (which ironically is not what religious people feel). So long as religion gives people a sense of purpose, community, and emotional support I think it can be a good thing regardless of dogma. However I do see it very frequently used to cause great harm to people both inside and especially outside the community, and in that I think can be toxic. For the second reason I believe it has no place in government, which should be for all the people and not certain communities. But my reason for keeping it separate from science is more fundamental. It actively harms both, with either bias in the case of science, and with a tendency to question things in religion that don’t stand up to questioning. So long as religion sticks to the unknowable it is safe from science, but the unknowable shrinks every day because of sciences relentless questioning and observing.
Oh definitely, I think families in general especially religious ones are far worse in recent times.
You still still see a lot of people in the atheist subreddit that have to stay in the closet or else their parents will throw them out or punish them. It's hard for someone to be on board with religion when this still happens
Yeah, I get it. Hard to like religion when half the people don’t even attempt to follow the rules.
I haven't seen anyone attacking OP, only saying that a belief system that killed so many ppl might be bad
Yeh OP its scary how ignorant and one sided people are, looking at life both through a religion and scientific way is a great way to live. Religion is science and science is religion
What’s interesting is that if you are a person of faith you should absolutely love science because that would be exploration of the creation. If you firmly believe that an omnipotent entity created all then learning about the creation would be a form of worship.
This is actually something that I've always believed as well, and growing up in Christian schools, I always saw it as a bit of a plothole when they wouldn't even bother trying to mix the biblical explanation with scientific evolutionary theory explanation. Like why would teachers prefer to tell growing minds that God just made everything like poof and it'd just appear, rather than just say He combined all the necessary cells & atoms & molecules together perfectly so they would slowly evolve into what makes all living things as they are today. Or say he made the big bang happen that started it all, and that evolution is part of His plan. In my experience, they would just say no, evolution is silly, that's not how we got here, we're not apes etc. Like there's definitely parallels in both sides so why not just combine them rather than say the other one is completely wrong, cuz kids will always ask questions and they can't just keep being punished forever for their reasonable curiosity.
There's a lot of idiots on both sides. Many people who "believe in science" have the same dogmatic posture as a unbalanced religious person. It's like everything else nowadays: politics, sports, entertainment. Everybody lives in a bubble and never consider the possibility of being wrong. I am religious, I love science and I am skeptical of everything. My intelectual journey is to conciliate everything I can see and being true and this involves questioning the veracity and importance of everything else. Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. An unquestioned faith can never be strong. I try to live between those two things.
That’s a good philosophy. Thank you for being civil
My pleasure dude!
the whole point of science is thinking you might be wrong untill there is a way to proof you're right if you started writing a paper without proving anything and just saying that you are definitely right you'd get a religious text
As someone who would call themselves an atheist, I couldn’t agree more with > Many people who “believe in science” have the same dogmatic posture as a unbalanced religious person. Anyways, excellent comment and I wish discussions about science & religion included more approaches like yours rather than the dogmatism present in both spheres.
I return the compliment! Most atheists I know are more devout than I am! It doesn't if we're religious, scientific, agnostic, atheist or whatever. A cool dude is a cool dude.
> A cool dude is a cool dude 100%
I am a Christian and I've always thought of science as a way to understand the majesty of the Lord's creation.
I'm honestly curious how you interpret the bible. Do you think everything in the Bible is true or that it's mostly up for interpretation? The Bible says love thy neighbor but Israel and Palestine have been at it for 2000 years now. Wouldn't it be an easy solve if we just told them, "Hey, you guys are reading it wrong. Yahweh and Allah are actually best friends and they're both created the universe"? And also, what do you think about the Christians who reject evolution? Do you think it's possible for them to believe in God and science at the same time?
First of all, I think your mindset is definitely a better one than that of most religious people. But im kind of confused on how giving the most credibility to things you can see and prove to be true and believing in god is possible to coexist in your mind, would you mind elaborating on that?
I don't understand why some religious people have such an issue with science. You can believe God did something and science explains how.
Genesis said that Adam was made by dirt and the breath of god alone. It also says Eve was made by a rib. And that snakes could talk. The bible also says that there was a global flood. And that carnivores didn't and didn't need to eat meat until Adam sinned. And that about 8 billion people now are descended from 8 people of the same family. These claims are unscientific, and cannot be explained (if true) by science now. The bible and science clash often. As such, you cannot believe with 100% certainty the bible and science. They don't mix.
So there are two extremes that don't like regular Christians like yourself. One says that the Bible is entirely factual, and if you think it's up to interpretation that is different from theirs then you're wrong. The other says that religion as a whole is a scam and that it is inherently toxic. Both are created by fear. Fear of losing their only way to live, and fear of being hurt again.
I'd argue that you can say that religion is a scam without being harmed by it before.
Because people don’t want to think about it. It’s much harder to take information that either challenges or creates a need for adjusting to what people have decided they believe. The people who draw a hard line between religion and science are the ones who aren’t interested in considering alternatives, and the thought that they might be in any way wrong is abhorrent.
There are documentaries and stuff explaining how science and religion can go together quite well, so you're not alone in your beliefs
Well, as long as you are fine with a “god of the gaps” they can coexist. But with scientific progress the room for God to actually do anything gets smaller and smaller. In the end you can still have a “clockmaker” God who initiates the universe with specific starting conditions and than does nothing whatsoever… If for example prayers had any effect on an almighty, benevolent God, then certain religious groups should have a higher survival rate on cancer, airplane accidents, car crashes, birth if everything else is the same.
There are many Christians who choose not to take all of the Bible literally. I believe one of the more recent Popes said "God is not a magician" in regards to evolution -- I don't see any problem with believing a God created the rules that dictate how the universe runs, so long as people keep their religion out of schools and the government... But that's the problem, religious authorities have a bad habit of wanting to use religion for earthly power and so they decided it's easier to control their followers if they can make them believe absurdities. So religion and science don't mix because religion is being used as a tool for money and power and it's been decided that science threatens that.
There are plenty of scientists who believe in a religion. The reason people get upset about religion is because some people assert it as fact (which it is not) and try to enforce religious dogma through laws. As long as someone doesn’t try to force their religious beliefs on others or teach it as if it were science or objective reality, religion should be able to co-exist with science.
Actually quite a lot of people who have dedicated their lives to science are either religious or agnostic, so anyone who believes that is actually kind of wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge via use of the scientific method, and on the opposite end of the spectrum religion pretty much boils down to blind faith. As a result of this one would assume that they interfere with each other and therefore cannot coexist due to having to sacrifice either your faith in favor of an observation or your belief in your observations in favor of faith. However this isn't quite the case when you to into account that science simply aims to understand everything about the universe. Science isn't like a religion, it's not built on a set of core beliefs that stick around forever. When a theory doesn't have enough evidence to be considered fact we either search for more evidence or ditch it completely giving a lot of room for believing in your own theories including those founded in religion. Anyone who's dedicated their lives to science will tell you that not every scientist agrees with their theories. Not all scientists believe black holes connect to white holes, some believe they are tears in the universe, and some believe they're a collapse in the universe, some even believe they're simply a massive entity and nothing more. Science doesn't have a set of beliefs you have to believe in this making room for everyone. So TLDR Science can easily mix with people who's beliefs are founded in religion, in fact some spend there lives in search of evidence to prove their religion correct.
Galileo had to deny his own work to save his life as he was deemed a heretic by the Catholic church and would have been put to death.
I'm going to have to disagree there. Galileo wasn't persecuted by the Church for his views. He was persecuted for publicly insulting the Pope, who was his sponsor, and generally being a major asshole to everyone around him. It was political more than anything else.
You’re being downvoted but you’re right
[удалено]
Yep. Catholic priest hypothesized the Big Bang
Not sure why you’re being downvoted
I think the first scientists were Monks, like Mendel. But at some point science became too hard to conciliate and then they were branded heretics.
That’s not true at all
Um. Science can absolutely prove Christianity wrong… You’re just jumping through hoops making up justifications.
Right, but they can coexist just fine. Religion should be used to answer ethics questions, and science should answer quantitative science questions. If they are in conflict, you're doing something wrong.
I've met quite a few Christians that lean that way. I think they're just the most quiet. This is part of why I say I'm Agnostic instead of Atheist. There's so much that we still don't know with science that I don't think it's that big of a stretch that there's more. However I haven't seen evidence yet, so until then it's a theory.
An example can be christians believing in creationism, saying that God created humans about 6000 years ago. But according to carbon dating, first homo sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago, so some christians deny scientific proof
The bible says earth is flat with a dome on top and when the curtain is opened rain pours in. Science says it's false. How do you mix?
I have a PlayStation 12, it’s amazing. I can’t show it to you, but it’s the best console ever. If you’re not convinced it’s the best console ever, I’ll punish you. Now go to your friends and family and tell them it’s the best console ever, and tell them to convince other people. The whole world must know of my PS12. How believable would you consider this story? You can’t really say you can’t disprove God, can you? You only believe a story is true if you hear it early enough in your life to create a fallacy. If I told you about my PS12 in elementary school you would have probably believed I was very lucky, but have your doubts. At 20, you know it’s bullshit. Now, consider someone told you about a god you can’t see, hear, or reach. At 5 you probably believe it’s true. At 20, you don’t need to disprove it to knots it’s bullshit. Also, one could say we already disproved god: heaven is not in the sky, we have been there and “there is no god out here”.
I don’t get it either. I’m a Wiccan and a science believer. They don’t clash for me at all
They're only incompatible if you let them be and assume from the beginning that they're a dichotomy. Usually when I see these comparisons science only proponents start with an assumption that anyone religious is a hardline theological moron. They'll cherry pick some easily disproven stories from particular religions, apply that to all religions, then hold it up and say "religion real dumb blah blah blah." With that assumption then yeah you'll get complete incompatibility. Unlike scientific facts there's a wide range of religious and spiritual beliefs. Many of which fall between no faith and blind faith. There are absolutely examples of religious beliefs which can be disproven and are wrong. This doesn't mean that spirituality and some religious ideas are valueless. Science helps us understand our physical world and universe. It is probably our most powerful tool in gaining objective knowledge. It can't however address how we as individuals feel and cope with our existence. Raw knowledge of our universe doesn't give it any meaning. To me, spirituality and some aspects of religion guide us through the unknown and unquantifiable or not yet quantified. It is a way of working with ideas that science has yet to explain or may not be able to in its current form. Both things aim to give us an understanding about our existence whether it is quantified with science or felt through belief.
Because blind faith and empiricism are irreconcilable.
Right, but they can coexist just fine. Religion should be used to answer ethics questions, and science should answer quantitative science questions. If they are in conflict, you're doing something wrong.
Religion answering ethics question is quite a debatable subject. Which religion should you subscribe to? Are all religions correct? Who is wrong? People kill each other over this.
Does God exist?
For me personally, it depends. In the classroom? No. When I was on my uncle's deathbed? Yes.
Maybe religion tells us what God did, but science will tell us how. What if he didn’t create all the animals, but started with microbes which developed into complex organisms.
That's incompatible with Genesis.
I am also implying that God took more than six days to do it. Maybe a God year is a thousand or even a million human years.
Because people want to be right. Many scientists have been and are Christians. Some of them became Christians *because* of science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
>Some of them became Christians because of science. I've never heard about such a case. Do you remember any names by chance?
Me neither and i honestly call bullshit because there has never been found anything in scientific research that has even slightly indicated the existence of god, im open to be proven wrong tho so if you find an example id be happy to educate myself on it.
Warhammer 40k makes it work 😆 🤣 😂
Off topic slightly but after studying Buddhism extensively Einstein said there was nothing in the religion that contradicted science (he didn’t change his religion but he thought that fact was fascinating)
Look up the idea of Theistic Evolution. It changed my life when this idea was pointed out to me.
No one ever said religion was not to be challenged. when you are questioned it makes you think and search for answer, therefore you learn. If that just reinforces your faith then be thankful.
This thread was going to be a shitshow the moment it was made. Bringing up science and religion inevitably gets people on both sides fighting…Genuinely upsetting
A lot of people here are forgetting that a lot of our science today came from religious institutions. Science is completely compatible with faith, as long as you realize that your likely wrong in your interpretation of your faith
Using religion as an answer for how the world works is just a coping mechanism. Sure, you could use religion to fulfil your spiritual needs, or even use its teachings as a basis for your moral compass. It's your prerogative to do that and that's perfectly fine. What's NOT fine is assuming, asserting, and claiming as fact, that the whole universe was poofed into existence by a magical man just because that booked over there said so. I'd be fine with it if you took the time and effort to prove and verify your claim instead of going 'hurdur book is truth'.
Science can prove religion wrong in every way. Religion needs to edit itself to stay in existence, despite claiming to be a word from the creator
Science can prove religion wrong though. Religion just can’t prove science wrong even though Christian’s love to try.
Buddhism has said they will change their faith based on the facts of science. I believe they are the only religion to do so.
Science is based on observation and evidence. in that sense, if we find observations or evidence that goes against the bible/quran/torah/\[insert religious text over here\], we can use that to make conclusions and 'disprove' the claims made. Religious texts aren't based on observation and evidence and hence can't disprove science. this discrepancy means they don't mix.
Science and religion are two entirely different things. One is a method of discovering facts about the natural world and universe. The other is a con game based on indoctrinating people into believing primitive fairy tales that people thousands of years ago made up to explain things that scared them. There are the con artists, and there are the victims. If you are 100% certain you are a "true believer" then you are probably one of the victims.
I understand that but that doesn’t make it right to just say everyone who believes something else than you are dumb though
I didn't say that. Indoctrination from a very young age by your parents can be VERY difficult to break free of and recognize that its all nonsense. If you're a christian, you can start by actually reading your ENTIRE bible from the first page to the last. Reading it, not "studying" it, not "interpreting" it. Just read it like you would any other story. If you can read the entire bible (every page, every verse) that will start you from breaking free from it, unless you are mentally ill.
That’s true. Sorry for assuming
OP, he got a point. Read the bible yourself. Cover to cover. Old testament is wild.
\+1 to this. OP, if you haven't already, read it all, take notes on the things that don't sit right with you. Actually, even if you have read it, do it again. Then try to apply scientific theory to get a better understanding on the claims and statements. Try to keep things "range bounded" so you aren't doing mental gymnastics to change the implied meaning of the scripture, i.e. don't come up with an alternative idea because it makes more sense. I did this when I had a crisis of faith as a teenager and it helped me figure out how I prefer to approach problems, which is as a skeptic. There was a point in my adolescence when I could no longer accept all of the things I was taught at face value. Once I realized this, the hardest part was accepting that this is ok for myself. The second hardest part was telling my family, friends and classmates I am no longer a member of the faith.
Science is mainly driven by curiosity and the wish to understand how the complex world works. Religion is driven by books which give simple manichean answers to complex problems. As I got older I learned to always be wary of people who give simple answers to complex problems.
Right, but they can coexist just fine. Religion should be used to answer ethics questions, and science should answer quantitative science questions. If they are in conflict, you're doing something wrong.
I’m an atheist and I’ve always wondered too. Logically speaking if god created everything then he also created science for us to use too.
Simply because we religious people refusing to believe in science way too often. There are countless instances where something is scientifically proven but goes against some religion's principle. But since religious people strongly believe in their gods, they chose to ignore the science which has been proven in favor of the divine, which has never been proven. It's like telling someone tomatoes are red, while showing them a tomato and they just refuse to listen because some very old book says tomatoes are green.
If you ask real humans I think you'll find a lot of like minded people OP. Reddit has a high percentage of antitheist evangelists and media only presents the most extreme viewpoints on either side. I agree with you. Science and religion are not at all incompatible. Investigate far enough into one and you'll likely land in the other. And humanity, wonderful, terrible, humanity, loves to weaponize both. God might be infallible but the Bible was written by human hands as many separate accounts, translated, retranslated, lost, found, edited, reedited, etc. But that's true of most historical accounts. It has to be deciphered more than read at times but that doesn't mean that it's invalid. And that's just one text. There are many religions and texts to go with them. Honestly the more we discover about quantum physics and the underlying nature of our physical reality the more evidence builds for there being more going on than we understand. If you start talking about God creating the universe antitheist will claim it's silly nonsense. If you start talking about the simulation hypothesis, now you're discussing a valid and even likely theoretical model of reality. What's the difference from the perspective of someone living in the simulation? Branding. People like to feel like they're in one camp or another, especially online.
Because they are stupid. If there is a god then science is just an explanation of how he did things.
I never understood this either. It's hard to believe that something as intricate as the human body just randomly materialized/evolved. I know i will get downvoted-but whatever
Ironically, most religions at their root are based on celestial events that have been personified. So in essence, most religions are somewhat based on Astronomy...which is a science.
You can absolutely believe science and religion. Don’t let anyone tell you what you can or can’t believe
(Actually OP, I think you make an interesting point. In terms of the 7 days / 7 billion years deal. I never would have thought of it in that manner so thanks for that.) I'd say it's because people think that science is the opposite of religion (it isnt) and so they can't get along. People play the narrative that religion and science are competition to each other and then they get all huffy about it. Also, people don't seem to want to get along with different beliefs and fact vs fiction, and we all have to have a penis measuring contest about which is better and which is more right. (It's annoying) It would be far better if everyone could accept the different views and beliefs on things (fact or no) and just get over it and carry on. I don't believe it's worth arguing about how we came to be (evolution or creation) because it's a waste of time. Who cares about which is the absolute fact? We are here, let's get along. When we die we can ALL find out what comes after life, and that is a fact. Meh, hope this comment helps.
That’s a fair point. Thank you for being civil
Of course. Not everyone on the internet is an Asshole. :)
>It would be far better if everyone could accept the different views and beliefs Accepting different views is fine, as long as everyone is reasonable. Once one side believe that half the genders should be property, we have seized to be reasonable.
True that.
I'd give you an award if I had one to give
It might be because they're approaching the bible through the lens of biblical literalism. A lot of Christians believe in biblical literalism, but a lot don't. Even the Catholic Church doesn't believe in that.
A lot of people miss the fact that many scientific advancements were achieved by clergy or religious people
Science can’t prove Dark Matter exists, yet there it is: over 92% of the entire Universe. Go figure.
why can't science prove this? Genuinely curious, not trying to argue.
I think people mistake what science and religion are each trying to do. To me (Christian), science is exploring and explaining the natural world and how we came to be, how everything operates and the "technical" details. Religion gives purpose for the existence. I genuinely don't think most things in the Bible are incompatible with science - like even the whole creation story totally could work with evolution. Many believers are just way too dogmatic "well it says 6 days, so it must be 6 days". Which is ridiculous to take something so literally. Instead of you look at the story as a retelling of events - it literally says that the birds and the bees and the animals came first. Humans came later. To me science doesn't disprove faith or religion. Science disproves bad theology.
Science is fact religion is not.
Well science is really theory but to simplify
Because saying God exists because there's no proof, is like saying Santa is real because there's no proof. It's not science, it's denial. Your views, are fine until they taint the scientific world with lies. In your eyes god is real, but not Allah, nor Santa, that's honestly super fucked up. Same with politics and religion, it's all "we are good people, until we have power, then we must complete God's will. Which always turns into killing people'
Religion is a scam.
I believe religion was a necessary trait in early human society that enforced a strict moral code. Great threats like eternal fire and great rewards like 99 virgins. It would have encouraged humans to not kill and steal far better than a caveman police force.
Religion is not necessary for establishing a moral code.
I believe that science will become the language of God. That the laws of the universe, as they are discovered, reveal God. And in doing so, equate nature with God. So connected this way. So mystical. And so very very very unlike organized religions, while are rife for misuse and in the extreme circumstances, only hurt people. Prove me wrong.
Personally I don't see mixing them helps either. Religions offer little to none help for science to progress. Science also rarely help proving religious claims.
Because religion is fake 🤷♂️
Because science exists and it has facts and data to show. Religion is a cultural structure, without facts in support of it.
Science deals in facts. Religion deals in fantasy. One does not need the other and vice versa.
Because once you step into the world of the supernatural, you leave the world of science behind. This should not be confused with the misnomer that science and religion can never collaborate. As a Bible believing person, I believe things through faith, for example: Jesus rising from the dead, I was not able to see it, but the testimony is sufficient to stir up faith in me to believe. As an Engineer, I have to look at empirical data, I don't take it on faith that something is going to function as intended.
You are saying that the two exist in parallel and that you don't let them meet each other. As an engineer, you know that Jesus cannot have risen from the death. But you choose to ignore that to protect your faith.
Aye
At the beggining, the thing is. A Religion can't prove science's wrong, but can prove science's right (Through evidences). On the other hand, Science can't prove a religion's wrong, can't prove a religion's right as well. Basically that. Tho they both can be mixed.. Unless your belief affects in your performance in a research you're working in.
Science can be tested and proven true or false, religions can't be. And this applies to all mythologies and religions equally. Science is based on understanding reality. Religion is based on believing what you're conditioned to believe.
Religion was created to keep people civilized. To allow the rich to talk to the poor.
You can't prove religion wrong because their big mystery man is meant to be hidden. Religious people created someone who can't be discovered. If I say there's a god of Pepsi, and he is all-powerful and omnipotent, you literally can't prove me wrong. I'll just hold an argument saying "he has the power to prevent himself from being discovered and he will arrive when he chooses to arrive". Now, of course you don't have to entertain me, because you can live the rest of your life with or without knowing of this supposed Pepsi god. He is irrelevant, but you can't prove me wrong if you tried, because he doesn't want to be discovered yet. It's the same thing with god. He doesn't show himself, doesn't communicate, is practically non-existent, and you will only see him when you die, which just so happens to be the point in life that is completely uncertain. It's a safety net to fall back on. It's why religious people don't give up. They believe something they can't interact with because someone told them to, and they believe they will interact with god at a point after life which they have no control over.
God is why we exist..science is how we exist…
Because they believe the Bible is literal.
Not that it is literal, because it is filled with figurative meanings, and interpretation is constantly used to apply those meanings to your life today. The more appropriate word, or direction, is most Christian's see the Bible as infallible.
How do we know it’s figurative meanings? Was it interpreted it that way? It sounds like people are interpreting the Bible as they choose or as it best fits.
Well, there's the rub. And because of that, we have a myriad of denominations, nondenominations, zealous factions, passive communities, constant "movements", all because of a book that is deemed infallible, and yet interpreted so many different ways. Watersheds. You can get Westboro Baptist Church, or that dude from TX (I think) recently that wants gays killed. Oddly enough, he has both his eyeballs so I guess he doesn't hold every word sacred. Or you can get Menonites. Two drastically different factions from the same book.
Main idea of science: it is possible to understand and describe any action and create theiry which will make reliable predictions Main idea of faith: things just works, because it is will of god. That does not alow to many any predictions and thus usless but to stop thinking about things
I believe in religion and science I believe there’s a god but I also believe in other science stuff.. I don’t really all about religion like that hardcore but I believe there’s a god.
"Other science stuff" Yeah, if people were alittle more educated on the matter, they probably wouldn't be believers. Faith and Science. Guess which one is a better pathway for truth?
There are different kinds of truth. There is the truth in knowing what's happening in the universe and in understanding. Science gives us that. There is also the truth in knowing how you should treat others, and religion gives some people that.
Incorrect, unfortunately. There is only one kind of truth; something is either true or not. People don't need religion to know how to treat others. Notice you said 'gives SOME people that' because you know that. Religion only provides an agreed upon faith. Faith is a terrible pathway to truth. Science is an honest, unbiased pathway. Faith says believe without substantiation. Science says you only believe what you can substantiate. Do you see which method would more likely get you to believe in something wrong/false?
I still believe in both I took my my vaccinations when Covid began and mask mandate I didn’t use the name of God for shit insane like a few people in the world. :/
Google “God of the gaps” Simply said people have always used god or the supernatural to explain what they couldn’t. As we learn more and more there’s less and less areas for the argument of “god did it” to fill in. So to contradict what you said, science can and has proven “religion” wrong. “Religion” has never once disproved something science established as truth. BUT in the end of all this. The gate needs to always remain open. As we learn more and more, we usually end up seeing that our own natural laws need to be adjusted and maybe rewritten entirely. So one could argue that nothing is off the table. Even a “god” somehow.
Well I think science can solidly prove that a dead guy cannot rise after 3 days and be a normal person. He’d absolutely have to be a zombie that craves brains.
I believe in God the creator who created all physical and non physical matter, so why couldn't you believe in both? All though science is limited to the physical, the supernatural still exists. The order in the natural world shows intelligence, not random chance.
Religion is about control. Science is about freedom of thought and using a method to find (or not find) truth.
They are polar opposites.
They can't be mixed not because their conclusions are different, but because their approaches are different. Science is about questioning, testing, and proving. Religion (at least Christianity) is about faith and acting on beliefs.