Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Are Science And Christianity In Any Way Compatible?


JohnnieNaked

Recommended Posts

Please give me how you think they would or wouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
Guest Babylonian Dream

There is no way for them to be. Either you can bleed to death and suffocate to death on a cross, but then come back to life, or when you bleed to death and lose too much oxygen, consciousness and life just doesn't return to you. You can't have it both ways.

 

Also, things coming into being because God spelled them into existance either happened, or science is real, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is real.

 

You can't have both. And yes, in order to have Christianity, and have it be valid, you need to be a biblical literalist, at least for the forms around today, which say Jesus died for our sins. Because we'd need to be descended from a literal Adam 6,000 years ago.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since dead people don't rise, people can't walk on water, donkey's can't talk and mud doesn't heal blindness it's pretty likely that the two are mutually exclusive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Science and history are methologically naturalistic enterprises, it can only prove stuff within the realm of the known natural world., so Christianity is incompatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give me how you think they would or wouldn't be.

They're compatible. Short version: many scientists are Christian. That is evidence of compatibility. There is a long version, but it looks like we're into short versions today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things the bible got right:

water moves in currents.

 

 

 

Have a good day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give me how you think they would or wouldn't be.

They're compatible. Short version: many scientists are Christian. That is evidence of compatibility. There is a long version, but it looks like we're into short versions today.

 

That is evidence of compartmentalization and confirmation bias. You're making the mistake of appealing to authority here.

 

If I accept your premise, why doesn't the larger number of scientists who are atheists disprove your premise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can fundamentalist Christianity and science be compatible? No, and they will never be. But what if your view of Christianity is that it is merely a system of philosophy? The supposed scientific explanations and the existence of the supernatural can be ignored. Jesus supposedly said that the greatest commandments are loving God and your neighbor as yourself. I don't know how the "loving God" part plays out, but caring for others and science are quite compatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're compatible. Short version: many scientists are Christian. That is evidence of compatibility. There is a long version, but it looks like we're into short versions today.

 

That is evidence of compartmentalization and confirmation bias. You're making the mistake of appealing to authority here.

 

If I accept your premise, why doesn't the larger number of scientists who are atheists disprove your premise?

 

Looking at the same thing (Christian scientists), I'm saying that they're examples of compatibility and you're saying they're examples of compartmentalization and confirmation bias. On it's face, I think it's more reasonable to think that they're examples of compatibility rather than to say that they're suffering psychological problems. But, you're right - it's an appeal to authority (that people are generally reasonable). That's why it was the short version.

 

A summary of the long version is that Christianity isn't technically forced to make any claims that are contradicted by science. As Eugene has stated, fundamentalism =/= all of Christianity. Christian 'extras' can drape across our metaphysics like a warm blanket -- it wouldn't change the result of any experiment, but it would keep you warm in the dark. The fact that Occam's Razor tears that blanket to shreds doesn't change compatibility - any scientist can bring his blanky into work if it makes him feel better as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

 

Don't confuse compatibility with reasonableness. Compatibility refers to whether two sets of ideas can be held at the same time with rationality, and the test for rationality only looks at logical possibility. Christians have a set of unnecessary,* untestable, and inconsistent assumptions, but those assumptions don't necessarily interfere or conflict with scientific discovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the same thing (Christian scientists), I'm saying that they're examples of compatibility and you're saying they're examples of compartmentalization and confirmation bias.

 

Well, look at it this way. If 3 out of 10 natural scientists are theists causing us to assume that their belief is compatible with their scientific knowledge, what do we do with the 7 out of 10 scientists who positively express disbelief in a deistic entity?

 

Given the fact that people in general, all of us, regularly fall victim to traps such as confirmation bias, why is this such a leap to suppose the same thing is happening here? Especially in light of the fact that roughly 90% of the general population professes belief in god whereas only 30% of scientists do.

 

A summary of the long version is that Christianity isn't technically forced to make any claims that are contradicted by science.

 

It's a marginalized version of xianity that doesn't believe in the literal resurrection of christ is it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the same thing (Christian scientists), I'm saying that they're examples of compatibility and you're saying they're examples of compartmentalization and confirmation bias.

Well, look at it this way. If 3 out of 10 natural scientists are theists causing us to assume that their belief is compatible with their scientific knowledge, what do we do with the 7 out of 10 scientists who positively express disbelief in a deistic entity?

 

Given the fact that people in general, all of us, regularly fall victim to traps such as confirmation bias, why is this such a leap to suppose the same thing is happening here? Especially given the fact that roughly 90% of the general population professes belief in god whereas only 30% of scientists do.

7 out of 10 non-deist scientists wouldn't present a problem to this line of reasoning. What we would conclude is that non-deism is also compatible with being a scientist. Expressing disbelief is not the same as indicating incompatibility.

 

I think it would be a leap, especially if your narrowing the application to a group of people that you disagree with. Your stats don't account for the educated population, which would considerably even the ratio.

 

A summary of the long version is that Christianity isn't technically forced to make any claims that are contradicted by science.
It's a marginalized version of xianity that doesn't believe in the literal resurrection of christ is it not?

No, these Christians could and do believe in a literal resurrection. Science doesn't contradict things that it cannot test. It also doesn't forbid the possibility of anomalies like the resurrection.

 

Something that would outright conflict with science: Phlogiston theory. (more obsolete theories found at http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, these Christians could and do believe in a literal resurrection. Science doesn't contradict things that it cannot test. It also doesn't forbid the possibility of anomalies like the resurrection.

 

Something that would outright conflict with science: Phlogiston theory. (more obsolete theories found at http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory)

 

Now you're just talking apologetics. tongue.png

 

It's called a spurious claim and while it can't be ruled out with 100% assurance, it's not reasonable on any level to believe it happened.

 

A scientist who can accept it as fact is compartmentalizing his beliefs with his scientific method. There is just no way around this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is if you cherry pick your bible teachings like I had done and argue intelligent design. Because scientists are taught to QUESTION everything, xtians are taught to ROLL WITH everything being gods will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wester

They are both socially constructed and used to create authority. That is what they have in common and that is where Christians have an opening to attack science (as was done in Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions - but call me when you find a believer who knows anything about Mr. Kuhn).

 

And are they compatible?

 

In 1998, Pope John Paul II (the pope before the boy Nazi named Ratzinger) issued an important encyclical entitled “Fides et ratio” (Faith and Reason). In it, he stated, Faith held simply and without the exercise of reason is condemned and “runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.” Fideism (blind faith over reason) and biblicism (reliance on biblical texts alone) are explicitly rejected.

 

JP2 had the right idea, but sadly this opinion is now in a very small minority in the religious community and I wouldn't be surprised if Ratzinger's Opus Dei Mussolini wannabes done got ahold of this encyclical and burned it.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, these Christians could and do believe in a literal resurrection. Science doesn't contradict things that it cannot test. It also doesn't forbid the possibility of anomalies like the resurrection.

 

Something that would outright conflict with science: Phlogiston theory. (more obsolete theories found at http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory)

 

Now you're just talking apologetics. tongue.png

 

It's called a spurious claim and while it can't be ruled out with 100% assurance, it's not reasonable on any level to believe [the resurrection] happened.

Well, holding reasonable beliefs is not the same as holding compatible beliefs. Clearly! How many other unreasonable beliefs do scientists hold? I'm sure it's in the millions. Example: Isaac Newton wasted a lot of time with Christianity and Alchemy, of all things. Another example: a scientist who thinks his wife would never cheat on him because love transcends lust. Two unreasonable beliefs. Science is compatible with a hell of a lot because science is intentionally narrow in what it claims.

 

I wouldn't say that whether the resurrection happened is a scientific question anyway, it's a philosophical / historical one. That's because science does not rule out anomalies. Science actually accepts bona fide anomalies and works to adapt its theories to make sense of them. I'd say that science is silent on things it can't test - like, for example, what happens when you sacrifice a deity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, holding reasonable beliefs is not the same as holding compatible beliefs.

 

You're going to have to give me your definition of compatible then because scientifically speaking, unreasonable, unfounded beliefs represent everything science is designed to help us avoid.

 

I wouldn't say that whether the resurrection happened is a scientific question anyway, it's a philosophical / historical one.

 

You're seriously moving the goal posts here my friend. Either a dead man, who was god, became alive again or he didn't. Historically-speaking the same scientific method (history is a social science) would be used to deduce whether or not this were fact; just with a wider range for statistical error given the scientific method as it applies to history is by its nature necessarily less exact than say pharmaceutical testing.

 

If it's a philosophical understanding, then you seem to be making the claim that they don't really ACTUALLY believe the resurrection occurred or that jesus was actually god incarnate, but only symbolically believe this. If this is the case, then yes, it the belief could be compatible as I understand the definition of compatibility here. But that rules out every xian scientist who has a fundamental belief.

 

That's because science does not rule out anomalies.

 

Yes, but as I pointed out already, it does identify spurious claims and results and it does not allow room for accepting as fact claims derived from potential, unobserved, unprovable anomalies. If it did, belief in Santa would be equally compatible with scientific belief as xianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the human mind has endless ingenuity and that in fact Christianity could be made to be compatible with science if Christianity was taken in some kind of a purely metaphorical way. My mind can't seem to do that, so for me it is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is based on blind faith (and it is proud of it), while there is no place for accepting things based on blind faith in science. So no, they are not compatible.

 

That there are Christian scientists isn't evidence for compatibility. They either just ignore areas where science and Christianity clash (and there are plenty of such areas), or they are in a state of cognitive dissonance or they still accept some things based on faith instead of scientific evidence or they don't really believe in what the Bible claims.

 

There are claims of Christianity which are untestable, alright, but there are also claims of Christianity which become seriously problematic to reconcile with science. Such as Adam and Eve vs. evolution. There are Christian scientists like Francis Collins who accepet evolution but they struggle with reconciling it with the scirpture. Theologically. They try but so far they fail. In short: if there was no Adam and Eve (and Paul seems to take the story as literal, so that's another problem), there was no original sin, so there's no need for Jesus to die for our sins. Theologically evolution is a big problem for Christianity, even if there are Christians who accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, holding reasonable beliefs is not the same as holding compatible beliefs.

You're going to have to give me your definition of compatible then because scientifically speaking, unreasonable, unfounded beliefs represent everything science is designed to help us avoid.

Sure, though I think I already did. Compatibility means that you can rationally hold two beliefs at the same time. Rational means logical, not reasonable.

 

I wouldn't say that whether the resurrection happened is a scientific question anyway, it's a philosophical / historical one.

You're seriously moving the goal posts here my friend. Either a dead man, who was god, became alive again or he didn't. Historically-speaking the same scientific method would be used to deduce whether or not this were fact; just with a wider range for statistical error given the scientific method as it applies to history is by its nature necessarily less exact than say pharmaceutical testing.

 

If it's a philosophical understanding, then you seem to be making the claim that they don't really ACTUALLY believe the resurrection occurred or that jesus was actually god incarnate, but only symbolically believe this. If this is the case, then yes, it the belief could be compatible as I understand the definition of compatibility here. But that rules out every xian scientist who has a fundamental belief.

All I'm saying is that there's simply no way to test and see whether the resurrection actually happened. Therefore, it can't be a scientific question.

 

History is only scientific inasmuch as historians attempt to be objective when constructing the past. It's not science, and it doesn't use the scientific method. When I said the resurrection was partially a philosophical question, I meant to invoke just basic ideas about causality. As in, is it even possible for the resurrection to have happened? Is it reasonable to think that it did?

 

That's because science does not rule out anomalies.

Yes, but as I pointed out already, it does identify spurious claims and results and it does not allow room for accepting as fact claims derived from potential, unobserved, unprovable anomalies. If it did, belief in Santa would be equally compatible with scientific belief as xianity.

Science does not verify as fact 'claims derived from potential, unobserved, unprovable anomalies,' but it also does not rule things out a priori.

 

Science is the ultimate open-minded ass that will never actually commit to something unless its been tested by him and his friends, and that includes committing to negatives. So it actually allows room for any belief that it hasn't expressly rejected, like the ones in the Wikipedia article that I linked. This would be incredibly annoying if actually practiced by a person.

 

It looks like you think that if a claim can't be scientifically verified, then it isn't compatible with science. But that's not what compatibility means. A claim will be compatible with science as long as it hasn't been disproved. It won't be scientific, but it won't be incompatible either. If all that you're saying is that Christianity is unscientific garbage, I am right there with you. But that's just not what I thought this thread was asking.

 

Ultimately, compatibility wasn't enough for me. Why bend over backwards with faith-based assumptions to make something hobble along? I said screw that, and that's why I'm here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, though I think I already did. Compatibility means that you can rationally hold two beliefs at the same time. Rational means logical, not reasonable.

 

I'm not sure I get the distinction.

 

I'm guessing you mean something like St Anselm's ontological argument, which is logical. I would counter that the argument is very broad and does not create a logical basis for believing in something as statistically improbable as the resurrection. It merely provides a logical framework under which god could exist. One that was countered quite soundly by Gaunilo btw.

 

 

All I'm saying is that there's simply no way to test and see whether the resurrection actually happened. Therefore, it can't be a scientific question.

 

Ok, fair enough. But that still doesn't give someone free reign to just wander off and believe every outlandish claim out there while at the same time arguing there isn't a compatibility problem with science, which is a tool designed for the very purpose of weeding out such things.

 

History is only scientific inasmuch as historians attempt to be objective when constructing the past. It's not science, and it doesn't use the scientific method.

 

 

*Jed accent* Dickens you say?!

 

History is indeed a social science that uses the scientific method.

 

 

It looks like you think that if a claim can't be scientifically verified, then it isn't compatible with science.

 

Not at all. Just a claim that counters everything we currently know about how the natural world works. We know that dead people don't come back to life 3 days after the fact. We know donkeys don't talk. We know mud does not heal blindness.

 

If one person in the history of the human race happened to come back to life as an outlier to everything we know about how the human body operates, it would be neither here nor there because the scientific method does not leave me room to leap to conclusions and consider that this outlier did indeed occur, and is fact when it has never been observed, when the claim makes no sense based on our current understanding of how the world works and which is completely unverifiable.

 

Does science rule out that it couldn't happen? No. But xians don't live in the 'it could' happen, they live in the 'it did happen' which is not compatible with science; which is a method designed to peel off these types of claims.

 

A claim will be compatible with science as long as it hasn't been disproved.

 

I disagree for the reasons I've already stated.

 

I think what you are ultimately trying to say -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that science doesn't completely rule out xianity. Here I agree if the word completely is in the phrase. But, I would argue that since science is also a method which cock blocks the leap of faith, and xianity requires a leap of faith, they cannot by definition be compatible with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give me how you think they would or wouldn't be.

They're compatible. Short version: many scientists are Christian. That is evidence of compatibility. There is a long version, but it looks like we're into short versions today.

 

I had always maintained faith by keeping scientific knowledge and faith separate. Once they started intermingling, that was when the ball started rolling. From what I've seen, this is pretty common of believers in the field. Most scientists I know gravitate towards agnosticism because of how perfectly it fit in the scientific mindset of not knowing. As scientists, we typically try to vet any spiritual beliefs because they all too easily color our perceptions of the world. As well, Christianity claims to have the answers that biologists and astrophysics are looking for so it's far too easy to fall into the trap of confirmation bias.

 

Then there's also occam's razor. What does god/s even do? We used to believe that the sun was Apollo's chariot or that god performs a miracle to allow the bumble bee to fly. Today we now have perfectly reasonable, natural answers for those phenomena so why should we continue to prescribe a supernatural answer to things like the creation of the universe or the start of life when there could be rational, natural explanations for these as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give me how you think they would or wouldn't be.

They're compatible. Short version: many scientists are Christian. That is evidence of compatibility. There is a long version, but it looks like we're into short versions today.

Then vegetarianism is compatible with meat production. There are vegetarians working at meat factories. :)

 

Compartmentalizing different beliefs is something we humans are extremely skilled in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you are ultimately trying to say -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that science doesn't completely rule out xianity. Here I agree if the word completely is in the phrase. But, I would argue that since science is also a method which cock blocks the leap of faith, and xianity requires a leap of faith, they cannot by definition be compatible with one another.

I think we have different ideas about what it means to be compatible and are talking past one another.

 

Ultimately, what I am saying is that Christianity and science are 'compatible' in that someone could rationally adhere to both.

 

I'm not trying to threaten anything, I'm just saying that it's possible. Most things are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't understand how someone can rationally adhere to xianity unless they view it symbolically; say in Antlerman fashion.

 

I agree, we are probably talking past one another.

 

BTW, my old philosophy professor was a catholic, who gave students who wanted one a copy of his book of biblical contradictions. The guy always puzzled the hell out of me as he could be so rational and could get blustery with those he thought were being illogical and talking out of their ass. He was like a mean version of the socratic law professor in Paper Chase.

 

The cat knew his stuff though. I have nothing but respect for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.