Why fight science?

[everlong]

Why do religions and specifically the big three of Christianity, Islam and Judaism fight science when they could easily use them to their advantage?

God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Earth days? Why are we to assume God's days would be the same length. Perhaps his days are a billion earth years. Instead we end up with the Jesus dinosaur museum.

The Big Bang Theory. Why not a tool of god? Who else has the power to smash star systems together and thus create life? I would think this would put God's power into a context that people could understand.

Evolution. Why couldn't have god created monkeys on day 4 and said you know I can improve on that and made man on day 6.

 

[oldrover]

I can't speak for Judaism or Hinduism, or contemporary Christianity.

However, orthodox Christianity does not take the story of creation in Genesis literally. Could the sun rise and set on the first day, but it take far longer than 24 hours? Absolutely. Same with subsequent days. And perhaps God might have employed some form of pyrotechnics in order to create the heavens and the earth.

That said, do not make the mistake of worshipping science. Science is man's attempt to better understand the universe. But the intellectual methods man uses... physics, chemistry, calculus, astronomy, carbon dating... man did NOT create. They were embedded into the universe LONG before man discovered them.

Who embedded them? Right back to the Big Guy. LOL... so yeah, science and God do not contradict each other. They can't. The latter created the former.

 

[Nikolai]

Judaism generally doesn't fight science and takes a much more symbolic view of Genesis. Jews tend to be among the world leaders in scientific achievement.

List of Jewish Nobel laureates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Brandon Five]

Well, when it comes to explaining the unknowable I think that is where we get into disagreements. There are strains of anti-intellectualism in all faiths, I suppose, but I think some of what you are seeing is a result of the over-selling the ability of science to explain things that have not been and never can be observed. For example: the Big Bang. Plenty of elegant math and physics to describe it, and while it is highly possible that it happened that way, it is not something that can be "known". Even accepting that as an explanation, how to explain what set it in motion? Who is the "first mover unmoved"?

Similarly, with evolution we see evidence of changes within a kind. The question is: does the mechanism of evolution explain the complexity of all life? We know what is in DNA, but cannot synthesize it. Is it reasonable to question the idea that something that is so complex that we cannot build even with full knowledge of what it looks like is unlikely to have constructed itself randomly?

 

[everlong]

I can't speak for Judaism or Hinduism, or contemporary Christianity.

However, orthodox Christianity does not take the story of creation in Genesis literally. Could the sun rise and set on the first day, but it take far longer than 24 hours? Absolutely. Same with subsequent days. And perhaps God might have employed some form of pyrotechnics in order to create the heavens and the earth.

That said, do not make the mistake of worshipping science. Science is man's attempt to better understand the universe. But the intellectual methods man uses... physics, chemistry, calculus, astronomy, carbon dating... man did NOT create. They were embedded into the universe LONG before man discovered them.

Who embedded them? Right back to the Big Guy. LOL... so yeah, science and God do not contradict each other. They can't. The latter created the former.

I choose to think science is part of the universe and thus godly so it's worth worshiping. We help shape the universe being part of the collective consciousness.

It's good that your biblical interpretation isn't literal and is thus open.

 

[everlong]

Well, when it comes to explaining the unknowable I think that is where we get into disagreements. There are strains of anti-intellectualism in all faiths, I suppose, but I think some of what you are seeing is a result of the over-selling the ability of science to explain things that have not been and never can be observed. For example: the Big Bang. Plenty of elegant math and physics to describe it, and while it is highly possible that it happened that way, it is not something that can be "known". Even accepting that as an explanation, how to explain what set it in motion? Who is the "first mover unmoved".

Similarly, with evolution we see evidence of changes within a kind. The question is: does the mechanism of evolution explain the complexity of all life? We know what is in DNA, but cannot synthesize it. Is it reasonable to question the idea that something that is so complex that we cannot build even with full knowledge of what it looks like is unlikely to have constructed itself randomly?

As far as the big bang it is a theory and could be proven wrong at some point when our knowledge of such things are greater. That said from a psychological stand point I stil don't get not using it to your advantage vs fighting it.

There is a lot of evolutionary concrete proof on the other hand in the form of fossils and other physical evidence to prove how man evolved.

 

[oldrover]

I choose to think science is part of the universe and thus godly so it's worth worshiping. We help shape the universe being part of the collective consciousness.

It's good that your biblical interpretation isn't literal and is thus open.

Science is part of the universe. That's true. You dont have to believe that.

But you do not shape the universe in any way shape or form, and we are not part of a collective consciousness. I can make a comet? Yours and my brain are connected? No facts support that view. If you have any evidence to the contrary on either point, other than opinion, I'd love to read it.

 

[The Brandon Five]

As far as the big bang it is a theory and could be proven wrong at some point when our knowledge of such things are greater. That said from a psychological stand point I stil don't get not using it to your advantage vs fighting it.

I think it is pretty clear that such things are unknowable. Not sure what you think I am fighting?

There is a lot of evolutionary concrete proof on the other hand in the form of fossils and other physical evidence to prove how man evolved.

I didn't say anything about the evolution of man. There are fossils, it is true. Are they complete skeletons? A head maybe? Just a tooth? There is a lot of extrapolation involved in that work.

But I digress. You are missing my larger point. Mutation and natural selection are inarguable. The question is whether those mechanisms are sufficient to explain the leap from single-celled organisms to human beings with intelligence. There are gaps in the fossil record and unverifiable steps in between.

 

[everlong]

Science is part of the universe. That's true. You dont have to believe that.

But you do not shape the universe in any way shape or form, and we are not part of a collective consciousness. I can make a comet? Yours and my brain are connected? No facts support that view. If you have any evidence to the contrary on either point, other than opinion, I'd love to read it.

You have no facts to support a man ascended to heaven three days after dying on a cross to sit at the right hand of his father. Just because the bible says it doesn't make it true. If I read the Odyssey I can say Zeus is the true god, although I prefer Oden.

So because you don't agree with my faith I'm wrong and it's just my opinion but your faith is undisputed fact because the bible said so?

No I don't create comets. My control is much more micro but yes we are all connected. Not in the mind reading sense but our actions and how we shape our universe.

 

[everlong]

I think it is pretty clear that such things are unknowable. Not sure what you think I am fighting?

I didn't say anything about the evolution of man. There are fossils, it is true. Are they complete skeletons? A head maybe? Just a tooth? There is a lot of extrapolation involved in that work.

But I digress. You are missing my larger point. Mutation and natural selection are inarguable. The question is whether those mechanisms are sufficient to explain the leap from single-celled organisms to human beings with intelligence. There are gaps in the fossil record and unverifiable steps in between.

I wasn't fighting with you on the big bang theory. Just by the name it's the current theory most believe to be true. I was agreeing with you on that part and offering commentary. The other part if you’re a religion why fight it? Why not say that's just part of god's mastery that he can collide stars and make life out of it?

I misunderstood you if you didn't mean man's evolution but yes there are full bodily remains of cromagnum man, etc.

Yes from single cell to man or even "all life came from the sea" to earth dwellers but against I was arguing the psychology of just saying it was part of god's plan vs arguing the scientific facts.

 

[oldrover]

I can give you multiple eyewitnesses of Christ performing miracles, in written testimony. You might say they're all deluded, but they DID exist.

I asked you for some plausible theory to show how it's conceivable that our consciousnesses are all connected, and that we are part of creating our universe. Surely you can point me somewhere.

 

[everlong]

I can give you multiple eyewitnesses of Christ performing miracles, in written testimony. You might say they're all deluded, but they DID exist.

I asked you for some plausible theory to show how it's conceivable that our consciousnesses are all connected, and that we are part of creating our universe. Surely you can point me somewhere.

You're pretty much using the bible as your defense without calling it the bible. That's hardly concrete proof.

How do you explain people remembering parts of other lives? How do you explain people having near death experiences who see loved ones on the other side and describe it as another dimension more like Summerland or Nirvana described in other religions and not an ethereal heaven? How do you explain mediums talking to a person's loved ones from the other side. You can call this crack pot just like you said I would about your faith. That's the thing it's a faith.

All I asked was why faiths don't embrace science. I wasn't challenging anybody's faith. I simply wanted to know why they don't take the easy route and just use science as an example of god's greatness and not an evil entity. My question wasn't about faith or science but about psychology.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I wasn't fighting with you on the big bang theory. Just by the name it's the current theory most believe to be true. I was agreeing with you on that part and offering commentary. The other part if you’re a religion why fight it? Why not say that's just part of god's mastery that he can collide stars and make life out of it?

That's sort of where I have landed. I am not fighting the idea that there was a bang, I am challenging the idea that the existence of the theory obviates the presence of a supreme being.

I misunderstood you if you didn't mean man's evolution but yes there are full bodily remains of cromagnum man, etc.

Right, but Cro-Magnon man was just that: man.

Yes from single cell to man or even "all life came from the sea" to earth dwellers but against I was arguing the psychology of just saying it was part of god's plan vs arguing the scientific facts.

I am arguing the scientific facts because I think many people have been misled to believe that origins have somehow been "proven". I am arguing that we can never really know. People of faith are comfortable with camping out in that space. People who put their faith in the infallibility of human knowledge? Not so much.

 

[everlong]

That's sort of where I have landed. I am not fighting the idea that there was a bang, I am challenging the idea that the existence of the theory obviates the presence of a supreme being.

Right, but Cro-Magnon man was just that: man.

I am arguing the scientific facts because I think many people have been misled to believe that origins have somehow been "proven". I am arguing that we can never really know. People of faith are comfortable with camping out in that space. People who put their faith in the infallibility of human knowledge? Not so much.

I don't think the big bang theory dismisses a supreme being or collective consciousness at all. All I asked was why religions rejected so zealously.

But there are others before Cro and it proves the evolutionary process.

And I've never argued it as an absolute. I merely question why religions don't say well if that's the case it's still just god's magic.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I don't think the big bang theory dismisses a supreme being or collective consciousness at all. All I asked was why religions rejected so zealously.

I think what you are seeing is the rejection of the idea that it precludes God's involvement. I can't speak for the billions of people who have faith, so maybe I am just not familiar with what you are reacting to here.

But there are others before Cro and it proves the evolutionary process.

Again, I said that I didn't dispute the process.

And I've never argued it as an absolute. I merely question why religions don't say well if that's the case it's still just god's magic.

You mean religious people? I suspect for those who may have a hard time understanding some of the science they see it as a threat to dearly-held beliefs. I know many religious people who do think the way you describe, but again we need to be clear about how much is actually known.

 

[everlong]

I think what you are seeing is the rejection of the idea that it precludes God's involvement. I can't speak for the billions of people who have faith, so maybe I am just not familiar with what you are reacting to here.

You mean religious people? I suspect for those who may have a hard time understanding some of the science they see it as a threat to dearly-held beliefs. I know many religious people who do think the way you describe, but again we need to be clear about how much is actually known.

I agree they think it precludes god's greatness. I think they should roll with it and use it as a positive and say it only enhances god.

I think there are religious people who think that but then you end up with the Jesus dinosaur museum which is ridiculous. You get the early only being 5,000 years old, etc. Just say god's days are longer.

 

[oldrover]

You're pretty much using the bible as your defense without calling it the bible. That's hardly concrete proof.

How do you explain people remembering parts of other lives? How do you explain people having near death experiences who see loved ones on the other side and describe it as another dimension more like Summerland or Nirvana described in other religions and not an ethereal heaven? How do you explain mediums talking to a person's loved ones from the other side. You can call this crack pot just like you said I would about your faith. That's the thing it's a faith.

All I asked was why faiths don't embrace science. I wasn't challenging anybody's faith. I simply wanted to know why they don't take the easy route and just use science as an example of god's greatness and not an evil entity. My question wasn't about faith or science but about psychology.

An aside about the Bible:

There are very few examples of concrete proof in faith. But there is, for lack of a better phrase, circumstantial evidence. The Bible is a group of books written by people. Many different people. So it's not unreasonable to read three or four of them, who say similar things about the same person, and consider that maybe there's truth to it. Is it 100% proof? Of course not. But it is something... it's a level of 'circumstantial evidence', that ties into the overall theories within the books.

That's all I'm inquiring about... whether you know of reading material that would support your theories of interconnected consciousnesses and us being one with the universe, with any kind of plausible explanation/circumstantial evidence as to the why and the how. If not, that's okay. I was just trying to understand your beliefs better.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I agree they think it precludes god's greatness. I think they should roll with it and use it as a positive and say it only enhances god.

I think there are religious people who think that but then you end up with the Jesus dinosaur museum which is ridiculous. You get the early only being 5,000 years old, etc. Just say god's days are longer.

As I said, I think some just don't understand the science and are threatened by it.

 

[oldrover]

Biblical literalists are threatened by it.

 

[everlong]

An aside about the Bible:

There are very few examples of concrete proof in faith. But there is, for lack of a better phrase, circumstantial evidence. The Bible is a group of books written by people. Many different people. So it's not unreasonable to read three or four of them, who say similar things about the same person, and consider that maybe there's truth to it. Is it 100% proof? Of course not. But it is something... it's a level of 'circumstantial evidence', that ties into the overall theories within the books.

That's all I'm inquiring about... whether you know of reading material that would support your theories of interconnected consciousnesses and us being one with the universe, with any kind of plausible explanation/circumstantial evidence as to the why and the how. If not, that's okay. I was just trying to understand your beliefs better.

There's lot of books about Taoism, Buddhism and Celtic Paganism. My beliefs are pulled from all of them which came out of different cultures arriving at the same ideas independently much like your different authors. There's also a lot of work scientifically with quantum physics that looks to prove these beliefs.

But against I was never questioning your faith. I was question why a large faction of that faith chooses to fight vs embrace science.