Objective Views on Religion and Science

[eatAstar]

I know, I know, I'm just asking for trouble with this thread. BUT, hear me out! I want everyone to REALIZE that I do believe in Christ and this thread is more of a DISCUSSION than a DEBATE. That being said, I'd like to pose an odd, maybe even downright disturbing to some people, hypothetical. I really think that our world/species needs to think about things a little more in the area of Religion. Now, I UNDERSTAND the concept behind religion, the concept behind worship, the concept behind belief, you get it. What I want to ask is not a simple question, hell I really don't look at it as a question anyways. But I believe this is something that needs to be talked about. There are SO MANY discrepancies between Religion and science that somebody would think ONE of them has to be right.
Here is my hypothetical: Consider if one day there was a discovery of some sort of artifact or document or some THING which would discount a/the religion/s COMPLETELY, as in, a book, or stone tablet that says the story of Jesus Christ was a fabrication of some sort. Or possibly, verifies his existence and discounts SCIENCE. It is my opinion that a discovery of this type and magnitude would set off a cataclysmic war of sorts between the various religions of the world. Just think, if people thought that there was no Christ, or Allah, or any other figure, what would go through their minds? Especially in areas like the middle east, where religion and hunger are the only things that motivate most people. This has just been something on my mind lately and it weighs heavily. AGAIN, this is a DISCUSSION OF THE TOPIC, not a debate on religions and science. I hope many people take the time to respond to this. I know everyone who reads this will have a view on it and I hope you all voice your opinions. OBJECTIVITY IS THE KEY!! And, I think it would probably help us stay a little more objective if we are all stoned, so everyone, TOKE UP !!!

 

[eatAstar]

Come on Chuck, it's just a little discussion....didn't anybody ever tell you if you cant say something nice don't say anything at all?

 

[chuckbane]

didn't anybody ever tell you if you cant say something nice don't say anything at all?

same goes for you then doesnt it?

 

[eatAstar]

Lol, actually, I don't think I've said anything out of line. If you don't want to have some constructive input then don't say anything in this thread. I'm just trying to stir up some discussion. Nothing critical about any religion or anything at all. If I have offended people I apologize, but this was not my intent.

 

[ElBarto]

I don't understand your question. How could you "disprove" religion?

And how would verifying Jesus' existence discount science in any way?

 

[eatAstar]

Maybe I'll try to restate the question. What would tomorrow's world be like if today something proved OR disproved religion OR science?
examples:
Something found which says religion was manufactured by kings or leaders in VERY early history.
ORRRRRR
The second coming of Christ occurs and validates all Christianity.
^^^Just as some basic hypotheticals ^^^

I'm really just trying to get some ideas of what people think of religion. It is very hard to find anybody with an objective view of religion. Thanks to all readers/posters.

 

[chuckbane]

I don't understand your question. How could you "disprove" religion?

we disproved the Catholics that the world is not flat and that Earth is not the center of the universe.

And how would verifying Jesus' existence discount science in any way?

Well, because he apparently preformed "miracles" and he resurrected from being dead for days. that goes against science does it not?

 

[hopbr4]

first of all Jesus was a real person. i think thats a fact. so was Muhammad.
second i cant really think of a way you prove or disprove either of these 2 persons were or were not a prophet. no matter what "evidence" you would come up with, a "book" as you said (a New New Testament maybe?) people would always say it was or wasnt true.

 

[chuckbane]

Jesus, the bible, and most religions are just fables with a purpose.

Give people meaning in life and give them a reason to do nice things is the general purpose. I dont think people were supposed to take it as seriously as they did. and when they did, Catholicism was formed

 

[hopbr4]

very true theyre not called mythologies for nothing right?

 

[chuckbane]

Maybe I'll try to restate the question. What would tomorrow's world be like if today something proved OR disproved religion OR science?
examples:
Something found which says religion was manufactured by kings or leaders in VERY early history.
ORRRRRR
The second coming of Christ occurs and validates all Christianity.
^^^Just as some basic hypotheticals ^^^

I'm really just trying to get some ideas of what people think of religion. It is very hard to find anybody with an objective view of religion. Thanks to all readers/posters.

are you kidding me?

anyone who believes another mans idea of how the world "works" is a fool.

Religion is a sham,
if you want to beleve in something than think of what YOU want to belive.

for instance. I believe we are simply a species that got way to complex for our own good. We started asking question like "why are we here", "who created us" and "whats our purpose".
For some reason one day somebody made something up about a god and commandments and all that jazz and though that EVERYONE should follow that single belief.

I have my purpose. I want to make positive changes in the world because i know when i leave here those positive changes will still mean something.
I believe that Love is another thing of importance. Finding someone to take care of and have take care of you. Someone to worry about and to think and feel about.
None of that religion stuff matters

 

[ElBarto]

Religious belief can neither be proved or disproved. That's pretty much a defining characteristic of religious belief.

Science is "proved" every time you start your car, turn on your TV set, or microwave a burrito.

So I think the whole premise is meaningless.

 

[jackonthebox]

There are many hypothetical and assumed ideas in science, but over-all science is basically fact and is quantitative, meaning that its results can be produced over and over again. If the second-coming of christ happened right now, then that doesn't debunk evolution. It also wont change the fact that we can calculate a planet's gravitational force or even dismiss the scientific knowledge about atoms, protons, electrons, and so on.

so what kind of science are you saying would be proven wrong?

 

[eatAstar]

HOPBR4, you bring up an interesting point. These known books (both biblical and scientific) contain stories/explanations which would have to have been passed from generation to generation and so on. But all the while being edited and condensed and expanded and tinkered with, hence, The NEW, New Testament. We all went through the activities in grade school where one person is given a sentence or story and they tell one other, and so on while keeping everyone else excluded from the story. The beginning statement usually differs from the last. My question is, how could any of these literary references be reliable enough to base an entire existence on? I'll tell you how. People need reasoning. Humans need reasoning. It's not enough for humans to live their lives as, well, animals. We need to base our decisions/findings/events on SOMEthing...Religion is there. Science is there. We have neither proven or disproven either. So how can we base our entire lives on this?
Chuck, you have an interesting point. Some people are so caught up in either science or religion that nobody even takes into account the possibility of such an idea and therefore they totally discount it no matter what evidence there is to support either. Anybody else have some theories/comments?

 

[chuckbane]

yep. we will never know. so make up whatever the fuck you want... just don't force it on other people

 

[FZZW3334]

You speak about science as if it is a singularity; you cannot disprove "science" just like you can't disprove "math" or "physics".

If you believe that the bible should be interpreted literally then any religion based on that interpretation is disproved. Science can never be disproved as a whole because science explains how nature works, as long as nature exists so will accurate science. Science is constantly expanding it is a dynamic study while religion is in a constant stasis. Religion has to try and force fit itself in with ever expanding science and someday there will only be one thing for religion to hold onto, how did it all start? Now I think science may someday be able to develop a working theory describing abiogenisis but we will never be certain exactly without a doubt how it all began; and that my friend is the final gap in which the God of the gaps rests.

 

[CrackerJax]

It's apples and oranges.

One is pre-technology and anecdotal. The other is not.



out.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I don't really see or understand why people are comparing or trying to use science and religion against each other.

Both sides need to... well frankly, have their heads examined.

Science is meant to explain how the world works.
Religion is meant to create a set of moral standards to live by, like not killing, not stealing, not lieing, etc.

They should not be mixed, or used to refute each other, because they are both very different things, which means there is no conflict, or should be no conflict, for some one to believe in God and Evolution.

No, the only problem occurs when people take their religion literally and attempt to use it as a scientific explanation. It's also problematic when people take science too literally and attempt to disprove religion, which can't be proven or disproven.

Both of them belong in very separate areas.

 

[FZZW3334]

I don't really see or understand why people are comparing or trying to use science and religion against each other.

Both sides need to... well frankly, have their heads examined.

Science is meant to explain how the world works.
Religion is meant to create a set of moral standards to live by, like not killing, not stealing, not lieing, etc.

They should not be mixed, or used to refute each other, because they are both very different things, which means there is no conflict, or should be no conflict, for some one to believe in God and Evolution.

No, the only problem occurs when people take their religion literally and attempt to use it as a scientific explanation. It's also problematic when people take science too literally and attempt to disprove religion, which can't be proven or disproven.

Both of them belong in very separate areas.

Why is religion needed to set up morals and a standard to live by?

I'm not sure if you are familiar with any of Plato's dialogues but in the Euthyphro Socrates is after the definition of piety; his argument is applicable to the divine morals issue. The question at hand is, are things moral because God said so, or are things moral for a reason. You see if things are only moral because God says they are than morality is completely arbitrary. Now if God has a reason to consider something moral, a reason contained within the act itself than there is no need for religion or God to set up a moral code. You could argue (as Richard Dawkins does) that doing good, being moral, and helping others is a byproduct of human evolution. I would tend to agree.

The bottom line is that religion and science can be at odds for people seeking the truth.

 

[eatAstar]

...there is no conflict, or should be no conflict, for some one to believe in God and Evolution.

...people take science too literally and attempt to disprove religion

The first statement I wanted to quote is a little...off...I think. Evolution basically says that man was made from a series of natural chain events leading to a civilized world. A religion such as Christianity, however, states that God made all creatures and the Earth itself. I'm confused as to how there would be no conflict between the two when they are basically like photo negatives of each other...

This second statement is kind of misleading. Science, without coming right out and saying it, essentially IS an attempt to disprove religion. That may not be the root motivating factor for science, but in all reality the theory of evolution laughs in the face of creationists.

I think the two, science and certain religions, no matter what the circumstances, should NOT be mixed. Not only do they throw each other under the figurative bus, but do we really want our children growing up with one group of authority preaching science and the other teaching creation? OUR KIDS WILL BE CONFUSED. It's very important to stress to your youngsters that science and religion are two totally different entities and they both need to be explored and tested. It isn't fair to them that both sides are POUNDING it into their heads that their respective view is 100% right and the other couldn't be more wrong. Teach objectivity. It's one of the greatest qualities one could have.