[Anime!]

Would you mind providing examples of some of the religions you believe don't inherently work with science? Just to clarify?

Well Mormonism for one. They believe some crazy things, such as the sun borrows its light from the star Kolob

Well yes, a lot of the new age religions such as Mormonism and Scientology have some stupid beliefs that have no basis in reality, but I don't know if that necessarily makes them incompatible with science. You used Judaism as an example of a religion that works with science, but the Torah has stories almost as ridiculous as those from Mormonism. Perhaps the Jewish scientists you were referring to don't believe that God really turned some man's wife into salt, just as a lot of mormons don't believe that the star's light comes from kolob.

The fundamental story of creation in all 3 of the major monotheistic religions in the world directly contradicts accepted scientific theory, so how is it that they can work in science, but Mormons cannot? I don't see the distinguishing factor that makes Mormonism any different.

[Blink]

Would you mind providing examples of some of the religions you believe don't inherently work with science? Just to clarify?

Well Mormonism for one. They believe some crazy things, such as the sun borrows its light from the star Kolob

Well yes, a lot of the new age religions such as Mormonism and Scientology have some stupid beliefs that have no basis in reality, but I don't know if that necessarily makes them incompatible with science. You used Judaism as an example of a religion that works with science, but the Torah has stories almost as ridiculous as those from Mormonism. Perhaps the Jewish scientists you were referring to don't believe that God really turned some man's wife into salt, just as a lot of mormons don't believe that the star's light comes from kolob.

The fundamental story of creation in all 3 of the major monotheistic religions in the world directly contradicts accepted scientific theory, so how is it that they can work in science, but Mormons cannot? I don't see the distinguishing factor that makes Mormonism any different.

He is saying that some religions do not say that the natural world is different from what science says about it.

Your example is a 'miracle' in which a god violated the natural order of things.
This does not mean that they view science as wrong, but it means that they say that their god can violate the laws of the universe at will.


If a religion were to say "the world is flat", then that religion is saying that the natural world is different than what scientific views say.
If a religion were to say "God turned some girl into salt", then it is saying that 'God' can violate the laws of the universe.

See the difference?

Spoiler:

I am agnostic defaulting to atheism.
I see the concept of a god as a theory that cannot be proven or disproven. (hmu if you can prove/disprove)
Since it is not proven, I default to atheism, saying that there is no 'God'.

[Shinoa]

@Anime! What @"Ender" said

There is certainly a difference between a woman turning into salt and the sun not making its own light. A woman turning to salt doesn't necessarily mean science is wrong, just that god can do miracles. Saying the sun isnt making its own light is saying science is wrong.

Also Maimonides was one of the biggest Jewish scholars of the time. He certainly believed it happened

[Anime!]

Well Mormonism for one. They believe some crazy things, such as the sun borrows its light from the star Kolob

Well yes, a lot of the new age religions such as Mormonism and Scientology have some stupid beliefs that have no basis in reality, but I don't know if that necessarily makes them incompatible with science. You used Judaism as an example of a religion that works with science, but the Torah has stories almost as ridiculous as those from Mormonism. Perhaps the Jewish scientists you were referring to don't believe that God really turned some man's wife into salt, just as a lot of mormons don't believe that the star's light comes from kolob.

The fundamental story of creation in all 3 of the major monotheistic religions in the world directly contradicts accepted scientific theory, so how is it that they can work in science, but Mormons cannot? I don't see the distinguishing factor that makes Mormonism any different.

He is saying that some religions do not say that the natural world is different from what science says about it.

Your example is a 'miracle' in which a god violated the natural order of things.
This does not mean that they view science as wrong, but it means that they say that their god can violate the laws of the universe at will.


If a religion were to say "the world is flat", then that religion is saying that the natural world is different than what scientific views say.
If a religion were to say "God turned some girl into salt", then it is saying that 'God' can violate the laws of the universe.

See the difference?

Spoiler:

I am agnostic defaulting to atheism.
I see the concept of a god as a theory that cannot be proven or disproven.
Since it is not proven, I default to atheism, saying that there is no 'God'.

Ok let's re re re re-wind!!!! From my previous post

The fundamental story of creation in all 3 of the major monotheistic religions in the world directly contradicts accepted scientific theory, so how is it that they can work in science, but Mormons cannot? I don't see the distinguishing factor that makes Mormonism any different.

You essentially just agreed with the point I was making here. I'll reiterate: the story of creation, fundamental to all 3 of the major monotheistic religions, directly contradicts scientific theory. The story accounts that God created the earth in 6 days, putting humans on the earth alongside all other animals. So according to the account of Genesis, the bible and the Torah claim that humans and animals lived together - that humans have existed since the beginning of Earth's creation. To use your exact words, this belief is "saying that the natural world is different than what scientific views say", as it violates a number of universally accepted scientific theories. It doesn't matter if "God" did it or not, as it still describes the natural world (ie. the origin of humans and the planet) that directly contradicts accepted scientific theory.

Another example? Noah's Arc. A story that God flooded the Earth and Noah took 2 of every species on a boat and survived? I would love for you to explain how this story doesn't say "that the natural world is different than what scientific views say".

So once again, I fail to see how Mormonism is different in this regard. Mormons believe our sun is powered by another star, and Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that humans lived with dinosaurs. I still see no difference...

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/ken-ham/
Does this guy sound anymore sane to you than someone who thinks our sun is powered by another star?

[Shinoa]

@Anime! I don't know about Christianity and Islam; however, Judaism technically doesn't support the humans lived with dinasours thing. Like I said in my first post, many jewish texts suggest that the "people" (if you can call them that) back then were much different back than now. This is especially true if you consider the fact the Judaism also supports the fact that the earth is billions of years old and not 5-6k (Way too difficult to explain, you need to get into Kaballah which would take me an essay to explain), meaning evolution had to take place in that time. Furthermore, a common point is that gods days arent necasserily equal to human days. The time between animals and humans creation may have been billions of years.

We should probably end this debate since it's going off topic from the original point of the thread. You seem to know ur stuff well tho. Im sorry I cant argue for every major religion, since I dont know nearly enough to. I'm also sick and sleep deprived, so excuse me if I made little sense.

[Boudica]

I have to say, this discussion is definitely one of the more well-educated and sound debates I've read in this forum section. Thank you for your thoughts!

To relate back to the original topic. I agree and know of many of the points that people have made already about science and religion not necessarily denying each other's relevance, but may collaborate.

When you think about US research - Remember that a huge sum of the governments research and development (R & D) expenditure goes towards research conducted by universities/colleges. The very same institutions that began as schools to train ministers and religiously educate young men. Their curriculum was based upon the type of education referred to as classical. It included the learning of ancient languages and philosophers. It was believed that this type of higher education would help young men to think at a more advanced level. Over the decades and centuries, the curriculum changed, but the development of these institutions led to some of the most important scientific research that exists in the world today.

Religion may not always directly cause or encourage scientific investigations, but can be a catalyst for it.

On another note: Has anybody ever watched Transcendence? This thread really reminds me of it.

[drradfo]

I'm going with neither side. They're both b.s. I feel like everything is just random