Are science and religion reconciliable? -

UntimelyDhelmise

Galar Purge Survivor
kiwifarms.net
I'll use myself as an example; I believe that the literal hand of God has come down less times than I have fingers. What is far more reasonable (and can align with the theory of evolution and the fossil record) is that events such as the beginning of Genesis are not literal and play out as an orchestrated series of events stretching for billions of years (this is also supported by scientific findings explaining just how unlikely and long it would take for a sea of random events to create amino acids). Why would an all-powerful creator use the Roman calendar? Each "day" could've been an entire era. So the answer to your question depends on who you ask
Ah, the classic "gap" theory.

If we take scripture at face value in this instance, there's a couple little tidbits that kinda undermines its very concept. The first of which is that when God finished his work, he dubbed it as "very good" aka perfect, exactly as he designed it to be. And then more importantly, when the world falls from Adam and Eve's disobedience the verses make it very clear that death, thorns, predation and other factors became newly introduced phenomena. As for how things changed from then on, the two leading theories are that either life was already "prepared" for the fall (because let's face it, it was inevitable) and simply adapted, or God manually changed things in organisms as part of the punishment.

Therefore, the notion of billions of years of death, suffering and destruction leading up to the events in Eden is incongruent with scripture, as God's perfect world was designed without such things and the consequences of mankind's sin brought them about after the fact.
 

UntimelyDhelmise

Galar Purge Survivor
kiwifarms.net
This assumes that the entire world was the garden of Eden
If it wasn't, scripture would've said something like "And they were kicked out of Eden, and wandered the lands of death and suffering" to imply that only Eden was a separate paradise and the rest of the world was as we know it now. But instead it treats the fall of sin as a universal change that affected everything.

They were still kicked out of Eden of course, but it was probably part of the punishment of being separated of God and such, as well as banishment from the Tree of Life.
 

Getting tard comed

kiwifarms.net
Ah, the classic "gap" theory.

If we take scripture at face value in this instance, there's a couple little tidbits that kinda undermines its very concept. The first of which is that when God finished his work, he dubbed it as "very good" aka perfect, exactly as he designed it to be. And then more importantly, when the world falls from Adam and Eve's disobedience the verses make it very clear that death, thorns, predation and other factors became newly introduced phenomena. As for how things changed from then on, the two leading theories are that either life was already "prepared" for the fall (because let's face it, it was inevitable) and simply adapted, or God manually changed things in organisms as part of the punishment.

Therefore, the notion of billions of years of death, suffering and destruction leading up to the events in Eden is incongruent with scripture, as God's perfect world was designed without such things and the consequences of mankind's sin brought them about after the fact.
This presumes to know God's definition of perfection which is silly at best. Also it's a presumption to assume "Saw that it was good" means it was perfect. Also a silly presumption. It's also silly to take scriptures at "face value". You cannot judge anything written by "a scientific fact standard" prior to the concept of scientific fact every existing. Truth and fact are not synonymous.

If it wasn't, scripture would've said something like "And they were kicked out of Eden, and wandered the lands of death and suffering" to imply that only Eden was a separate paradise and the rest of the world was as we know it now. But instead it treats the fall of sin as a universal change that affected everything.

They were still kicked out of Eden of course, but it was probably part of the punishment of being separated of God and such, as well as banishment from the Tree of Life.
Eden was a separate paradise on Earth. I'm not sure what you're getting at here? I've never heard anyone think or imply Eden was all of Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jje100010001

The Great Chandler

"Pickleless girls don't marry virgin boys"
kiwifarms.net
Some level of science can compliment religion. The way nature appears can be a sign of intelligent creation like the resilience of a seagull that glides for days on end across the sea. In our case, we imitate some of nature's aspects into our inventions. You do have the Earth being in the goldilocks zone of the orbit as well so one might assume it's the result of an intelligent creator.

But we're just human beings with a limited outlook on things. Best to stay curious
 

Anti Pedo Action

If you disagree with me, that means you're a...
kiwifarms.net
There's nothing backwards about it. I'm stating a relationship that if it goes one way, it also goes in the other way. You then stating, but it also goes one way. Well yes, that's the assumption that I'm using to make a point. It looks like your own bias with presumed direction of the relationship.

--

There is also no such evidence for matter having always existed. We presume it in the way we presume that things fall down before the concept of gravity. It's a reasonable presumption. You can do endless experiments on earth and drop things and see it repeated. It's a presumption based on incomplete data and almost certainly incorrect. Things don't fall down, they're attracted to mass.

I'll state my point clearer in a way that it's clearer for the biased atheists: the presumption that mass has always existed is as theoretical as the concept of god.
I was using the "you have it backwards" as a rhetorical device. But the point stands.
We have two competing propositions here:
A) There is no "creator." The "stuff" of the universe (technically, matter hasn't always existed but some jew says matter is an emergent property of energy so that point is kinda pedantic) has always been there in some form without need for a creator.
B) There is a creator. He created the "stuff" of the universe. And he has always existed in some form without need for a creator himself.

Proposition A does contiain the unproven (unprovable?) assumption that stuff has always existed without need for a conscious creator. Proposition B attempts to give a potential alternative explanation while containing what is effectively the same assumption. I guess you can argue they're both equally presumptuous, contrary to my previous post. But all proposition B does is shoehorn in an extra step in the process without actually giving an answer to the fundamental question at hand: what is the origin of everything?
 

Lemmingwise

Don't speak to me or my daughter ever again
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I was using the "you have it backwards" as a rhetorical device. But the point stands.
We have two competing propositions here:
A) There is no "creator." The "stuff" of the universe (technically, matter hasn't always existed but some jew says matter is an emergent property of energy so that point is kinda pedantic) has always been there in some form without need for a creator.
B) There is a creator. He created the "stuff" of the universe. And he has always existed in some form without need for a creator himself.

Proposition A does contiain the unproven (unprovable?) assumption that stuff has always existed without need for a conscious creator. Proposition B attempts to give a potential alternative explanation while containing what is effectively the same assumption. I guess you can argue they're both equally presumptuous, contrary to my previous post. But all proposition B does is shoehorn in an extra step in the process without actually giving an answer to the fundamental question at hand: what is the origin of everything?
The mind abhors a vacuum, a gap of knowledge. We'll fill it with anything.

The argument that we're in a simulation because if it is possible to create such simulations then the chance of living in one is almost 100% due to the sheer number of simulations that can be made (once you start to iterate and count simulations inside simulations).

And if that's the case, then we've added extra steps and also added a creator (whether AI generated or built by some entity, god or otherwise).

I agree with the fundamental question you end with: What is the origin of everything?
And I'll add that we have nowhere near enough evidence, data or otherwise to even begin to answer that question. Perhaps it stretches back infinitely. Infinite time, or infinite simulations. The point is we don't currently have the capacity to know (or we would).

If you can't look around the corner of a street, you have no way of knowing if the street continues there, or if it's a hole in the ground, or if there's an elephant with a tutu doing a ballet dance. The last may sound improbable, but is just as possible. And if there's plenty of people in the past writing books about the elephant in the tutu, people who have gone around the corner and seen the elephant in the tutu, well how does one know how truthful the content of their claims are?

With everything you know, and see and test it may be absolutely ludicrous. But there may have been an elephant in a tutu. There might be one right now.
 

Anti Pedo Action

If you disagree with me, that means you're a...
kiwifarms.net
The mind abhors a vacuum, a gap of knowledge. We'll fill it with anything.

The argument that we're in a simulation because if it is possible to create such simulations then the chance of living in one is almost 100% due to the sheer number of simulations that can be made (once you start to iterate and count simulations inside simulations).

And if that's the case, then we've added extra steps and also added a creator (whether AI generated or built by some entity, god or otherwise).

I agree with the fundamental question you end with: What is the origin of everything?
And I'll add that we have nowhere near enough evidence, data or otherwise to even begin to answer that question. Perhaps it stretches back infinitely. Infinite time, or infinite simulations. The point is we don't currently have the capacity to know (or we would).

If you can't look around the corner of a street, you have no way of knowing if the street continues there, or if it's a hole in the ground, or if there's an elephant with a tutu doing a ballet dance. The last may sound improbable, but is just as possible. And if there's plenty of people in the past writing books about the elephant in the tutu, people who have gone around the corner and seen the elephant in the tutu, well how does one know how truthful the content of their claims are?

With everything you know, and see and test it may be absolutely ludicrous. But there may have been an elephant in a tutu. There might be one right now.
A general litmus test for how seriously an idea is to be taken is the reasonability of modifying your behavior based on it:
We may be in a simulation, but it's unlikely that any reasonable individual would act as if we are until some sort of credible evidence presents itself. Likewise with your elephant. It could be around the corner, but until I see something suggesting that it's there, I'm not going to operate under that notion.
Religion follows these same rules. There could be a god(s). But until credible evidence becomes available, it's not reasonable to act as if there is.
 

Not Really Here

Something's wrong with my neck sleeve
kiwifarms.net
Our understanding of the universe is almost non-existent. For instance, from an external (outside of the universe) point of view does time exist, or is the entire history of the universe observable/existing simultaneously?

How did the universe even start? Was it "natural", or in the far future will someone realize that the universe had to be created/kickstarted via external force?
Will that someone(or another even later) then use time travel to go back and apply whatever is required to initiate the big bang?

If time even does exist from an external point of view, are we in a timeloop?


The biggest problem with the bigbrained "I fucking love science" types is that they refuse to acknowledge just how little we know, and how current theories of the universe are based on assumptions.

Remember folks, math is a language, not a science (that's why it's the M in STEM).
 

Syaoran Li

Goth Mom Resurrection
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
No, I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE is though
Keep tipping that fedora all you want, but Naomi Wu will never touch your penis no matter how much you simp for the Chinese Communist Party while watching reruns of Rick & Morty. Besides, not all religious people are Bush-era traditionalist Evangelical Protestants

Come now, my godless fedora-clad friend. It's time for your appointment with the Wicker Man.

 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Made In China

jje100010001

kiwifarms.net
I’ve heard a good saying that the issue nowadays is that religion is taken literally and science is taken metaphorically.

Likewise, I think that everyone has a belief-shaped hole in them regardless of their actual beliefs, and despite the professed atheism of modern Liberalism, we are seeing some things being hammered into that new religion ( IDPol/ Intersectionality and its tenets, the cult of BLM and its martyrs, etc.).

All I have to say is: Bring back mysticism.
 
Last edited:
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Syaoran Li

args

oh lawd he comin'
kiwifarms.net
I think, before you can have an answer, that suits your beliefs, you need to define, what a god would be. This 'what' is different for everyone, no matter religion or origin, but different factors have a huge impact on the "established definition of god in a society". For example are do some christiants in America believe, that evolution can't be right, because in the bible, everything was created final by god. Other people think, that god and religion just explain other aspects of the human existance.
I think, if a god exists, it's not on the same level of existence as a human, or something you can experience. So god can't interact with anythingphysical or psychological and with that, it does't matter if he exists.
But the bible was a great start for laws and moral standarts.

I have recently read an article about this. The author explained, that in modern society, science pushed back religion, because it could explain things, religion tried to explain, but failed. Phenomenoms like meteors, or gravity, or physics in general, are now predictable, thanks to science. This caused religion to "retreat", and explain other phenomenons like science, to validate themselves.
The author is referencing another mindset from the antique greek mythology: mythos and logos. Mythos and logos resemble the mindset of thinking logically and explaining thinks religious. And to get to the fucking point: mythos and logos are getting mixed up, and you can't explain mythological things with logic.

My opinion to the original question is, that we simply need both. As long as religion is not crippling science, I think, it's ok if someone goes to the church for their psychological wellbeing
 

Harbinger of Kali Yuga

Because the world is SO BAD, like diet soda.
kiwifarms.net
The empiricism science is based on is not really compatible with religion as religion, by most conceptions/definitions, requires belief from revelation.

God is almost always, if not always, described like a corporeal entity. To have memory, you must have some form of information out there to store it, etc. To act, one must have some sort of information processing going on, and that requires a physical substrate such as a brain, to output such behaviors. You can try to imagine and claim there could be otherwise but I honestly think a "divine cosmic intelligence" not made up of anything is pretty nonsensical and it's just misusing language the same way an atheist or theist might claim or deny that a god could make square circles, as squares and circles by definition are incompatible.

If there is something out you could call a "god" it is certainly outside the scope of my knowing. I won't deny these kind of abstract possibilities but I doubt anything would be adequate to demonstrate such a thing to me as long as I am a tiny human. It's not worth discussing. It's like pondering whether the universe is a simulation; we have no way to knowing, and the most parsimonious conclusion, invoking Occam's razor, is that there really is no reason to propose there are external entities when they have no explanatory value to even begin with, as they just beget more questions.

If you want to ask if science is compatible with religion it's better to ask if empiricism is compatible with revelation and the answer to that is, not really. There's a reason why rely on empiricism for knowing,

A priori rationalism has demonstrated it to be wholly inadequate for knowledge and all the problems with the a priori proofs of gods existence demonstrate why.

Also, people act like religion was never meant to be taken literally. Disputes within religions and the Christian churches show otherwise; the early days of the Christian church had schisms over the finest hair splitting you've ever seen. The whole Christ thing has always confused Christians, whose religion looked quite different in the earlier years. Does god have one singular nature, or two natures that form a whole? Believe it or not people were killing each other over that argument for centuries, straining the text of the bible to figure it out.
 
Last edited:

gasthekikes1488

kiwifarms.net
All supposed “contradictions” between the Bible and science are illusory and predicated on false assumptions not found in either. The chief assumption is that science reflects a transcendent truth (and, by inference, that such exists). This assumption is not part of the scientific method by definition and in fact resides in the domain of philosophy.
This assumption may be ”justified” in many ways by different philosophers (all charlatans and demagogues). It however always goes back to the same general idea or attitude, namely optimism in regards to human nature, also known as the damnable, soul-wrecking heresy of Pelagianism. In this case this nefarious delusion that comes straight out of the pit of hell leads its victim to believe in his own ability to acquire knowledge in some self-sufficient way that carries a transcendent truth value in the same way God’s word does. Historically its main form has been rationalism, a heresy that owes its influence to a group of idolatrous sodomites who lived in Ancient Greece and is central to numerous false religions including modern Romanism and Muhammadanism. Empiricism has been a well-known minority position which is somewhat less blatant. The great Reformers were the chief historical advocates of the Biblical teaching that faith and divine revelation are received passively by the grace of God in spite of the totally corrupt nature of man. Taken consistently this implies rejection of the false equivalence between God’s word and man’s false wisdom. The philosophers who actually foreshadowed Christianity were the skeptics, not the reprobate sodomite Plato and his false school.
Science is not philosophy. Science does not imply any epistemological position. Certainly the oft-mentioned “relationship” between science and the false doctrine of empiricism is completely illusory, at best merely an incident of history which does not affect the nature of things.
In reality science is an arbitrary framework that has purely utilitarian value. Whoever distrust it and is not fond of it, is free to ignore it. He will not become any more or less ignorant. Whoever finds it likeable and convenient may enjoy doing it as long as no sinful activity is involved.
A good example of a false, artificial “contradiction” is the question of the age of Earth. The Bible clearly states that it was created several thousand years ago. This is an infallible truth that may not be denied. However, the Bible does not say anything about a future geological analysis estimating its age as the same period of time. There is no contradiction between God’s word and geology (and other sciences) as long as a false equivalency is not established and the arbitrary scientific method is not given a greater metaphysical meaning in what amounts to a completely unfounded and unjustified personal view.
The slimy, well-poisoning kikes have been exploiting this hoax for centuries to get educated people to reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the uneducated to look like idiots trying to “disprove” things like basic geology and evolution “scientifically”. This sinister scheme alone would no doubt be sufficient to justify their violent genocide.
 

XYZpdq

fbi most wanted sskealeaton
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I never understood the idea that if us monkeys could make pokeymans evolve and video game physics that it would be hard for an almighty creator deity.
 

Lemmingwise

Don't speak to me or my daughter ever again
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Religion follows these same rules. There could be a god(s). But until credible evidence becomes available, it's not reasonable to act as if there is.
I think a bayesian approach makes more sense; compare how those who act according to a religious doctrine to those who reject it (and compare the results of religious doctrine A to religious doctrine B).

There are plenty of shortcuts non-religious people use that are no different. For example, a good number of types of bandages for small injuries do nothing or are actively harmful. But they'll end up helping because other people and the person themselves are more mindful of it because of the obvious bandage.

Throwing away religiosity throws out all kinds of good things and it's easy to see when you compare the people who keep it and who don't.

Even religions like Islam help their people actively thrive.
 
Last edited:

Positron

Anti-intellectual; pro common sense
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
In reality science is an arbitrary framework that has purely utilitarian value. Whoever distrust it and is not fond of it, is free to ignore it. He will not become any more or less ignorant. Whoever finds it likeable and convenient may enjoy doing it as long as no sinful activity is involved.
The devil basically tells Jesus to ignore gravity; Jesus says doing so is abusing God.

The Bible clearly states that it was created several thousand years ago.
Citation needed. The Bible never speak of the age of the Earth; the infamous "6000 years" was the calculation through genealogy, which is hardly reliable.
 
Tags
None