The debate "Religion and Science will never coexist with ignorant people" was started by
April 12, 2016, 9:44 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 0 person is on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
TZW posted 4 arguments, blanco posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
TZW, blanco, SocialistForrest, Jason9374, Julia_lee and 5 visitors agree.
sikhism, jainism, taoism, voodoism, confusiasm, shintosm, african beliefs?
Soso, you've already made it clear you hate Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buhdist, Hinduist, (Insert rest of religious groups).
There is no irreconcilable difference yet. However, what happens when we finally piece together a unifying theory of gravity? What happens if we get a theory of abiogenesis? These would mean that there could irreconcilable differences between religion and science.
The "soft theology" you're talking about is not really an issue here since "soft theologians" tend to error on the side of science and make God fit somehow (which is fine by me, I don't care if you use God to fill the gaps if you feel the need to have something explained). It's the hardline theologians that are incompatible with science (young earthers, evolution deniers, etc...)
I've already said, if you can make religion conform to science, there is no conflict. However, you can't expect science to conform to religion (that would defeat the whole point of scientific inquiry).
i don't think that's the case..... He may just be misinterpreting some comments earlier.
Again if you look at any of the debates I've done regarding God or the existence of God, I have always presented my arguments as a probability argument, not certainty.
This same line or reasoning must lead to a scientific approach to public policy if I'm going to be consistent in my beliefs.
If religion can't be 100% substantiated, then it can't be established as truth, if it can't be established as truth, then you can't rely on the content of said religion, if you can't rely on the content you can't make informed decisions based on it. Science and empirical evidence can't answer all the questions begging humanity, but it ought to be our first stop on the way to solving our problems since it's the only source we have that can make truth claims which are substantiated.
That doesn't mean I don't respect the people that believe in some religion or another. I may not respect their decision making process when it's influenced by religion, but I can still respect them as an agent. Sharia law is probably the best example of this. I would argue that stoning some woman to death because she had an affair is absurd. The disallowing of women to obtain an education, even though studies show when women are educated the country does better as a whole, is just ridiculous.
If you look at the arguments I've made here regarding Muslims being "x" or "y" you'll see me categorically denying such claims as false since people must be measured individually not as monoliths.
TZW, great response sir, well done
If that is the case Soso, then your wrong and your probably an ignoramus, life shows evidence for the existence of a creator which religion provides the reason and the wisdom and the guide for how the creator will like to be worshipped.
I think it can coexist. nothing says G-d didn't create the universe with science. It's feasible and no one can step on any toes with that belief. It benefits both sides. Most Rabbi's will say that's how it happened actually. Since everyone jumps to conclusions though they fortify only on one side of the spectrum. When it's ultimately balanced in the middle of the scale not on one side of it.
Soso, I think its reasonable to assume that TZW can't handle a discussion like this, but don't blame him for that he Jewish and a Zionist I might add. See,Soso, what your saying is basically because religion says that homosexuality is immoral which it is, and (scientists) who are paid by the government to say that its a genetic thing there for a natural reaction and not a choice, because of that science and religion contradict each other and there for can not coexist, is that it?
No you don't respect people. beliefs are part of people. Why don't you just go join the country prpudamerican888 is creating you'd fit right in. You don't want equality you act like you do, but as soon as somebody says God you say no no no science is the only thing that is right. then go and say I respect people. Stop being a liar dude its pathetic.
"They both can exist but you already proved that you think religion is stupid if it doesn't affect policy."
Oh boy, your reading comprehension must be a little limited.... You should read over my statements in that thread again.
I clearly stated that I don't care what someone believes in or does at home as far as their religion is concerned. I'm OPPOSED to religious beliefs EFFECTING public policy. I believe I have the right to ridicule and criticize any and all beliefs when they reach the public sphere this includes all religions, all philosophies, all scientific research (there is some really bad science out there as well as pseudoscience), etc.... Religion is just another set of beliefs, we don't have to tread lightly around it.
I do however respect people. Maybe not their beliefs, but those are separate.
As far as the black and gay thing goes..... What the heck are you talking about. What does one have to do with the other? How is being black or gay a belief system.
You don't as you stated before. They both can exist but you already proved that you think religion is stupid if it doesn't affect policy. Well black voting and gays getting married affect policy you hate them too?
It depends on the willingness of the religious to incorporate science into their belief system.
As a general rule though, Religion can't coexist with science (although science can coexist just fine with religion).
Religion presumes the answer (God) before it dives into an inquiry into the subject. If religion could coexist with science then we would never debate the validity of evolution or the big bang again.
Science can do just fine with religion (provided that scientific research is accepted by the religious community) since religion answers questions like "why are we here" (implying purpose which science doesn't address).
The gray area is then things like morality. Science can inform our morality, but it's hard to argue that science can give us a theory of morality like religion and philosophy can.
Lets take homosexuality for example. There is a pretty good case to be made that religion deems homosexuality to be immoral or sinful. Science, however, shows us that homosexuality may be natural and based on "non-choice" factors. So we can shift our morality based on scientific understanding on the subject. Again, science here is compatible with religion so long as religion accepts the science and accepts that homosexuality is not choice and therefore not an immoral act. It becomes incompatible if religion decides that "non choice" acts are still immoral simply because a book says so.