Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[civ2]

ghost
Experience with religious texts, which you lack.

rugby
That's what they believe they do.
While I simply disagree with that.
I've seen too many holes (assumptions that are taken for facts) in the evolution theory (from the biological POV), to take it for granted WITHOUT it being testable.
Sorry, but I'm critical enough for that.
If someone doesn't like it, fine, we are free to dislike opinions.
Which I also do, so we're even.

 

[ghostmaker650]

The part of science that I'm not at peace with, is exactly the UNCHECKABLE stuff, that "describes" events that no one ever was or will be able to test, like dinos and bigbang.
The WORKING science is totally OK, cause we CAN test it and VERIFY or DISQUALIFY.
But the problem I fight very strongly, is to consider UNPROVABLE ideas as FACTS.
Also, this includes "extrapolating" short-term evolution into the one of billions of years, which we have no way to actually FIND OUT, WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.
I'm not gonna change my stand on this, and I'm VERY scientific in that:
PROVE or LEAVE, not ASSUME.
But I would NOT want to start THAT discussion all over, simply no WISH for it.
Period.

Oh, my...
1. Since when 6000 years ago is TESTABLE/PROVED?
Did YOU invent a time machine, so that Doc could go Back in Time, to see what ACTUALLY happened?

No, just bring me practical everyday life implementation of macro evolution (not adaptation or speciation, the cell-to-dino one).
Or bigbang.
All that "evidence" is but speculations and guesses, you can't ever know, whether the conditions even 6000 years ago were the same, as you THINK they were.
You weren't there!

How exactly are you Jewish after saying stuff like this? You're literally working to discredit your own religion. You keep insisting on things being 100% proven FACTS for anything to be taken seriously. Yet your religion has next to ZERO 100% proven facts. So how is it honestly possible for you to be Jewish?

Aha, tell that to the horde of anti-theists that claim, that evolution disproves G-d.
I've met a load of them.

Evolution can't disprove "God", but it can disprove the God of Abraham or the God of the bible. Simply because the validity of these gods rest upon the pillars of it's claims. Claims such as, He spoke every animal ever into existence all at once. Evolution disproves this claim, so your claim to the existence of a god (the god of Abraham) that created every animal with a spoken breath has been voided, discredited, proven false, disproved. Now this doesn't disprove the existence of a "god", but it does disprove the existence of the god described by your religion.

But of course you've already said you don't really believe in most science, so I doubt you'll objectively hear my argument.

No, I do.
There's real science, that is what we CAN use.
And also fake science, that is only used to deny religion, no other practical use.
Name me one practical implementation of the idea of Big Bang or big-scale evolution.
Not of their preceding source ideas (like, adaptation does work, still no proof for dinos), of THEMSELVES.

Riiiight, because the billions of dollars in time and money spent on the research of these things was for the sole purpose of denying religion . Come on, I know you're smarter than that to make such a, frankly stupid comment. Not to mention all the religious scientists that have worked on these projects committing heresy

Zig
We DON'T know how it was.
I'm not supporting ANY specific idea, but I'm also against taking any GUESS as a fact, to the extent of ruling out all other alternatives.

Again, How are you Jewish? You're not supporting any specific idea? Not even the specific idea of Judaism?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

WITHOUT it being testable.

I accept that evolution has not been proven to your satisfaction.This is healthy skepticism .

What I don't accept is that any scientific examination of the non observable past is untestable.

 

[fishjie]

obviously satan planted the dinosaur bones there to confound believers

 

[civ2]

rugby
How can one be without the other?

ghost
1. Should I even say, that I'm not gonna even consider "other gods"?
2. I'm very much Jewish, cause I've read tons of commentaries on how to understand the TEXT.
But my anti-evo skepticism isn't even based on my religion, it's simply a point of not trusting something that can't be proven, and yet is rigorously taken for fact.
As for religion, it's BELIEF by definition, with PERSONAL experience being the key factor.
It worked by me, so I took it for my belief.
Science claims to KNOW, so I demand KNOWLEDGE, not GUESSES.
And that implies something, one can actually TEST.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I accept that evolution has not been proven to your satisfaction.This is healthy skepticism .

Not really. It would only be healthy skepticism if there were credible reasons to believe that evolution is false. You wouldn't call 9/11 truthers "healthy skeptics."

 

[civ2]

whiskey
So now you need "credible evidence" AGAINST the GUESS???
Not FOR it???
You see, where it went with "idolizing" science???

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

If you arrive at the scene of a car crash , with skid marks from the north and the driver with spilt coffee on him , are you going to assume that he came from the south and the cause of the accident was that he spilt hot tea on himself whilst piloting a hydrofoil ?

Then in response , grab your phone and dial Pizza Hut for assistance ??

Of course not

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution. Scientists may argue about how it happens, but no serious scientist believes that it doesn't happen. Have you ever even heard of Australopithecus afarensis?

 

[ghostmaker650]

rugby
How can one be without the other?

ghost
1. Should I even say, that I'm not gonna even consider "other gods"?
2. I'm very much Jewish, cause I've read tons of commentaries on how to understand the TEXT.
But my anti-evo skepticism isn't even based on my religion, it's simply a point of not trusting something that can't be proven, and yet is rigorously taken for fact.
As for religion, it's BELIEF by definition, with PERSONAL experience being the key factor.
It worked by me, so I took it for my belief.
Science claims to KNOW, so I demand KNOWLEDGE, not GUESSES.
And that implies something, one can actually TEST.

Okay then, so you BELIEVE based on PERSONAL experience? So again how are you Jewish?

Judaism makes claims of which you have no PERSONAL experience with, such as how God created man. So how can you believe God created man? You weren't there 6000 years ago.

 

[civ2]

whiskey
Making an elaborated guess that involves loads of details, does not make it less of a guess.
OK, for the sake of saving MODS' nerves, I'll drop it for now.

ghost
Analogy for you to understand:
Evolution has points that can be checked and work - so I'm OK with them.
But the SCIENTIFIC proof can't be honestly such, if based on extrapolation that is unbacked by testability.
Thus, the proved parts can't be stretched to (honestly) SCIENTIFICALLY prove the unproved ones.
In religion, though, if your personal experience (or logical conclusions) lead you to believe in G-d on SOME points, it's perfectly religiously logical to extrapolate it on the entire DATA from that religion, which doesn't contradict the parts you already believe in.
What I'm repeating many times, Judaism is based on tight logical schemes and chains, that put together such diverse things as G-d and human.
Thus, I can believe the entirety of religion, based on believing part of it through personal experience.
Science, though, can't do it.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

whiskey
Making an elaborated guess that involves loads of details, does not make it less of a guess.
.

Of course it does

 

[History_Buff]

This thread is awesome.

Civ2, let me legitimately congratulate you on making the most pervasive argument of all time: I do not understand something, therefore God. You stand in a fine cultural tradition, dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

This is why debates with creationists are useless: the huge double-standard of evidence. You put such impossible standards on what you don't agree with and don't apply the same standard to your own beliefs. That is no way of discovering truth.

 

[ghostmaker650]

This is why debates with creationists are useless: the huge double-standard of evidence. You put such impossible standards on what you don't agree with and don't apply the same standard to your own beliefs. That is no way of discovering truth.

This ^^^

I'm sorry civ, but he's got you there. There's really no denying it.

 

[civ2]

whiskey
No, this is why the idol of science is unbreakable.
(Very not funny, unfortunately.)

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Combined with the irony of God thinking "and what really annoys me is I thought that was one hell of a kick ass explosion I pulled off all those years ago , and I thought the whole 'fish become people' thing was cool too , and even my believers don't appreciate it"

And where does this whole "idol of science" thing come from ? We're all basically just dumbasses relative to what there is to know , just some of us seem to want to try a little harder not to be .

 

[ghostmaker650]

whiskey
Making an elaborated guess that involves loads of details, does not make it less of a guess.
OK, for the sake of saving MODS' nerves, I'll drop it for now.

ghost
Analogy for you to understand:
Evolution has points that can be checked and work - so I'm OK with them.
But the SCIENTIFIC proof can't be honestly such, if based on extrapolation that is unbacked by testability.
Thus, the proved parts can't be stretched to (honestly) SCIENTIFICALLY prove the unproved ones.
In religion, though, if your personal experience (or logical conclusions) lead you to believe in G-d on SOME points, it's perfectly religiously logical to extrapolate it on the entire DATA from that religion, which doesn't contradict the parts you already believe in.
What I'm repeating many times, Judaism is based on tight logical schemes and chains, that put together such diverse things as G-d and human.
Thus, I can believe the entirety of religion, based on believing part of it through personal experience.
Science, though, can't do it.

They have a phrase for this... It's called intellectual dishonesty

 

[civ2]

rugby
The problem I see with combining evolution with creation:
You deny part of it, you'll come to deny all of it.
I've seen it already many times.
Also, it would have some religious consequences too, starting with Sabbath being the direct commemoration of the SIX DAYS creation.
HERE:

Verse 11: For in six days Ad-noy made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day. Therefore Ad-noy blessed the Shabbos and made it holy.

 

[ghostmaker650]

Also why is it that the "religiously logical" (for what ever that's worth) thing to say is "as long as I believe some of it then it's okay" as opossed to "Hmmm some of this stuff is nonsense, maybe I have the wrong religion"?