Why should I forsake science and believe in religion instead?

[BluePriest]

Don't you have to be a fundamentalist if you're to believe in religion completely?

If one believes in religion completely, then he or she would not even bother with science at all. There will be no need to find out how or why anything works, because a wizard God did all of it. Doesn't total faith make science pointless?

That's the exact attitude fundamentalists hold, isn't it?

Well, I guess this thread is kind of useless now. If I ask a fundamentalist to tell me why I should ditch science, he or she is likely to say "because it is the will of God" or something similar. It's not going to get anywhere...

Have you paid attention to this thread at all Bloodshadow? Almost no one agrees that you should believe in only God, or only Science. I believe in God completely, but I love discovering how things work. I understand that having a preconceived bias proven wrong can be hard, but you need to understand that group that thinks that science should be ignored is very small.

[Bloodshadow]

I believe in God completely

I have multiple objections regarding this line, but they'll probably offend you so I won't say them. Thus ends the discussion.

I have some more things I want to say as well, but saying them will just result in my assumptions and axioms being attacked. Eventually it will devolve into a discussion of semantics, and I honestly don't want to spend brain cells arguing about that.

How about this. I don't think I am able to believe in religion without forsaking science. If you're religious, you naturally think that I should believe in your religion, right? So why should I discard my current belief and adopt yours?

[OldTrees]

I believe in God completely

I have multiple objections regarding this line, but they'll probably offend you so I won't say them. Thus ends the discussion.

I have some more things I want to say as well, but saying them will just result in my assumptions and axioms being attacked. Eventually it will devolve into a discussion of semantics, and I honestly don't want to spend brain cells arguing about that.

How about this. I don't think I am able to believe in religion without forsaking science. If you're religious, you naturally think that I should believe in your religion, right? So why should I discard my current belief and adopt yours?

Why should you discard your belief that religion and science are incompatible? Because some of the rest of us Atheists, Agnostics and Theists see counterexamples to that claim. When reality provides counterexamples to a hypothesis one should reconsider the hypothesis. Perhaps even reject the hypothesis. This is science.

Your observations: Some theists distorting or rejecting science. Some scientists rejecting religion.
Your hypothesis: Belief in Religion and Science were incompatible.
This experiment: Provoke people into trying to provide counterexamples to your hypothesis.
Results: Counterexamples found.
Conclusions: Reject or modify hypothesis.
Are you a sufficiently rational being to favor evidence over hypothesis?

Perhaps you could clarify your position by providing your definitions of Science and Religion and name the specific inherent beliefs that conflict? Yes this is an invitation to have your premises for your argument discussed. It would also allow me to provide a non anecdotal possible counterexample for you to critique.

[Seiya]

Bloodshadow:  I show that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.  I show that believing in both is not forsaking one.  You offer no opposing argument other than that to believe in religion fully is to be a fundamentalist.  That statement is false. 

Fundamentalism in the sense that has been used in this discussion only applies to Christianity, but there are other religions.  You're completely skipping over Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and other religions.  There is more than one religion.  And even if you only want to discuss Christianity, fundamentalists are the vast minority of the faith.  It's like you're saying you can't agree with America because you don't like Buddhists, even though most Americans are not Buddhists.  I'm not trying to persuade you into believing in a religion, but rather, I'm trying to get you to find better reasons why believing in religion is a bad thing.

[Scaredgirl]

Don't you have to be a fundamentalist if you're to believe in religion completely?

If one believes in religion completely, then he or she would not even bother with science at all. There will be no need to find out how or why anything works, because a wizard God did all of it. Doesn't total faith make science pointless?

That's the exact attitude fundamentalists hold, isn't it?

Well, I guess this thread is kind of useless now. If I ask a fundamentalist to tell me why I should ditch science, he or she is likely to say "because it is the will of God" or something similar. It's not going to get anywhere...

Have you paid attention to this thread at all Bloodshadow? Almost no one agrees that you should believe in only God, or only Science. I believe in God completely, but I love discovering how things work. I understand that having a preconceived bias proven wrong can be hard, but you need to understand that group that thinks that science should be ignored is very small.

Being in the majority does not mean you are right. And in this particular case it means you are wrong.

Like I said earlier in this topic, science and religion cannot really co-exist because they are fundamentally so different. In my opinion a person who believes in science, should do so with everything. If you believe in science when it comes to say medicine, but completely disregard science when talking about some religious "proof", you are fooling yourself and creating your own version of science that does not exist. You cannot pick and choose which science you believe and which you do not, it's all or nothing.

Anyone who says they are believing in both religion and science at the same time, are contradicting themselves. What they should say is that they choose to ignore certain parts of science and replace that with religious belief. Many religious people do not like to admit this, probably because they fear it might make them sound ignorant or uneducated. This is why they create their own imaginary world where religion and science somehow work together and both are equal. But the facts are that if you accept religion, and at the same time ignore all contradictory scientific evidence, you do not have the same respect towards the basic principles science as atheist do.

[UTAlan]

But the facts are that if you accept religion, and at the same time ignore all contradictory scientific evidence, you do not have the same respect towards the basic principles science as atheist do.

I am not aware of anything that has been scientifically proven to be true that contradicts with my religious beliefs. I have not read every post in this thread, but I have kind of been keeping up with it. Without going back and rehashing all the stuff that has already been discussed, I'd like to hear about which things in science contradict Christianity.

[OldTrees]

Don't you have to be a fundamentalist if you're to believe in religion completely?

If one believes in religion completely, then he or she would not even bother with science at all. There will be no need to find out how or why anything works, because a wizard God did all of it. Doesn't total faith make science pointless?

That's the exact attitude fundamentalists hold, isn't it?

Well, I guess this thread is kind of useless now. If I ask a fundamentalist to tell me why I should ditch science, he or she is likely to say "because it is the will of God" or something similar. It's not going to get anywhere...

Have you paid attention to this thread at all Bloodshadow? Almost no one agrees that you should believe in only God, or only Science. I believe in God completely, but I love discovering how things work. I understand that having a preconceived bias proven wrong can be hard, but you need to understand that group that thinks that science should be ignored is very small.

Being in the majority does not mean you are right. And in this particular case it means you are wrong.

Like I said earlier in this topic, science and religion cannot really co-exist because they are fundamentally so different. In my opinion a person who believes in science, should do so with everything. If you believe in science when it comes to say medicine, but completely disregard science when talking about some religious "proof", you are fooling yourself and creating your own version of science that does not exist. You cannot pick and choose which science you believe and which you do not, it's all or nothing.

Anyone who says they are believing in both religion and science at the same time, are contradicting themselves. What they should say is that they choose to ignore certain parts of science and replace that with religious belief. Many religious people do not like to admit this, probably because they fear it might make them sound ignorant or uneducated. This is why they create their own imaginary world where religion and science somehow work together and both are equal. But the facts are that if you accept religion, and at the same time ignore all contradictory scientific evidence, you do not have the same respect towards the basic principles science as atheist do.

Perhaps you could clarify your position by providing your definitions of Science and Religion and name the specific inherent beliefs that conflict?

Science cannot deal with the investigation of non falsifiable truths. Science is not an all purpose tool that can answer every question. Moral Theory is a prime example of an area of knowledge that science cannot investigate.

Query: Are you assuming that Religion necessarily must make claims about falsifiable knowledge? If so, please defend this claim. If not then how does Religion necessarily conflict with Science?

[BluePriest]

Like I said earlier in this topic, science and religion cannot really co-exist because they are fundamentally so different. In my opinion a person who believes in science, should do so with everything. If you believe in science when it comes to say medicine, but completely disregard science when talking about some religious "proof", you are fooling yourself and creating your own version of science that does not exist. You cannot pick and choose which science you believe and which you do not, it's all or nothing.

Anyone who says they are believing in both religion and science at the same time, are contradicting themselves. What they should say is that they choose to ignore certain parts of science and replace that with religious belief. Many religious people do not like to admit this, probably because they fear it might make them sound ignorant or uneducated. This is why they create their own imaginary world where religion and science somehow work together and both are equal. But the facts are that if you accept religion, and at the same time ignore all contradictory scientific evidence, you do not have the same respect towards the basic principles science as atheist do.

Your only argument you have is if 1 part of science is not believed, then no science is believed. You have to prove this claim before you assert it.


1)Show parts that are ignored.
2)Not having the same respect towards it is NOT what this topic is about. Its about if you can believe in both.

[Bloodshadow]

Honestly, I'm not in the mood to back up my opinions right now. SG seems to believe the same things, so I'll let her do the work. She's probably a better debater anyways.

[Seiya]

When I say this, I am not saying it out of spite: you cannot flippantly attack others' worldviews without being willing to support yours when they are called into question.

[Bloodshadow]

Of course I can. If I demand you to back up your opinions, you don't have to follow it; you can just ignore me completely. So when you demand me to back up my opinions, I don't have to do anything.

Have I attacked any world views? I merely said that I don't think science and religion are compatible. Backing it up will offend BluePriest, so I won't do it. If I am to "define science and religion" as OT asked, it would take too long, and will not be worth the effort.

[Naesala]

Of course I can. If I demand you to back up your opinions, you don't have to follow it; you can just ignore me completely. So when you demand me to back up my opinions, I don't have to do anything.

Have I attacked any world views? I merely said that I don't think science and religion are compatible. Backing it up will offend BluePriest, so I won't do it. If I am to "define science and religion" as OT asked, it would take too long, and will not be worth the effort.

I should think as someone who values science so highly, you should be more than willing to back up your claims. Otherwise only hypothesis matters and not experiments and proof. And if THAT is the case, then saying God did such and so is as good a hypothesis as any. Also "Backing it up" would make your point less offensive, I should think, then making an empty blatant claim. If it is not worth the effort to argue your views and make us explain ours, then you might as well lock the thread because everyone will be offended and noone will make any progress.