Posted: Apr 03, 2011 3:41 am
IanS wrote:Yes, of course Christianity & Islam are incompatible with science
A baseless generalization. You assume that every tenet/doctrine of Christianity and Islam are incompatible with science. The correct terminology would be improbable with science. For example, a Christian who believes in a literal resurrection of Jesus is not contradicting science. Just the chances of life returning 3 days after death is scientifically improbable. That is not to say that science could not have been involved or perhaps science was not involved but rather another force that as humans we cannot fully comprehend.
(when I talk about religion, I always mean Christianity and/or Islam, and not some more obscure belief system).
Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are obscure? Why limit yourself with defining religion? Religion is the practice of worshiping a deity(s). The belief of the God's may be obscure but the religion is not.
The two things are actually polar opposites.
No they are not. Too be polar opposites they would actually never contradict each other. They would both make statements about different matters. This is what advocates of NOMA teach, that religion and science do not contradict each other because they deal with complete opposite functions.
But we know they are not opposites because religion and science agree in certain things. What is being debated is the differences in which the issues overlap and religion says one thing while science says the other.
Religion claims that everything can be known as absolute 100% fact & truth simply by a blind unquestioning belief in it's ancient religious books.
Evidence for this assertion? Or are you going to rely on broad sweeping generalization to make a point? I may believe in a God, but I am aware that I do not know with 100% absolute certainty that God does exist. I have faith in hope that there is a God, and the faith in the promises of the Bible, but it is not 100% and I do not hold to the falsity of reality vs doctrine. If reality says one thing and my doctrine says the other, than it is the doctrine that is faulty.
Whereas science entirely rejects that sort of unquestioning faith-based belief
True, but I know many people who treat science like this. Instead of the rigorous self-testing, self-correct, constant questioning that is science, many people believe that science is absolute. Thus you get people who say that a theory is 100% accurate. Whilst it would be more correct to say it is 99.9% accurate. Science always has room for error and correction.
But so does religious doctrine. I used to be a creationist, then I was an intelligent design/old earth creationist, then I was a day-age gap theorist with some evolutionary concepts, then I finally understood what evolution was and then I became an evolutionist. But did this affect the way I viewed God? Nope. It made me more appreciative for the world I live in, that my part in this world is but a shadow of the age of the Earth.
, on the basis that such belief has no logical
Every action stems from logic in the subjective lens. Perhaps the belief is a crutch which helps a person cope with life. Perhaps the belief stems from a sense of humility and a fragility that comes from "believing" in a God. Regardless, too the individual the belief has some logical basis. If we are to look at things in a objective lens, I can start naming illogical things. Monogamous relationships, love, government, money, thinking/philosophizing, and many more. These things in an objective lens are illogical, and yet they exist.
, credible,
That is true only if the person is attempting to persuade you to the believe in his or her belief. Otherwise any credibility is subjective to the person. What credible evidence do I have that makes me believe my neighbor truly loves his wife? His actions could be delusional or a facade. But to him, he has the credible evidence in which he knows he loves his wife.
evidential
Unless the person is making a claim, evidential only refers to the objective outlook on the religion. If the person made the statement the earth is 6000 years old, then evidence can be brought forth to support or refute the claim. If the person believes in a god, there is no evidence to confirm or deny that belief. As much as I hate to use the quote that cretinists love to use, "There is no evidence against God."
or educated basis whatsoever.
I wonder if you have ever talked to a real theologian, or a Pastor who has been through seminaries and theological training? If you really want to know, many pastors do not have seminary training and many pastors are not fully ordained ministers. Many get the basic theological requirements and degrees, find a church and start preaching. This is also true for many mega-church pastors.
Regardless, you'd be surprised just how much about religion you do not know. There are things I learn about Christianity every day, from interpretation of a certain passage to word play in a verse which gives it multiple meanings which are all viable. Theology is not an uneducated study nor is it full of uneducated people.
So far science has discovered and explained almost everything in the known universe, in the most astonishing detail.
This claim is baseless and shows a misinformed stance on science. Too be honest, we do not know how much there is too know. Next, science has created possible explanations into why and how things are in the Universe but as I said above it is only a 99.9% certainty. Science is not in the absolute business.
And not one of those millions of explanations is compatible with religious belief in any way at all.
So if my religious belief said that God created modern life through evolution that is incompatible with science which says modern life evolved over millions of years? The only difference is the religious belief makes the claim of a god where as science does not because it cannot, unless of course the God was a natural force.
So that is a very stark contrast and a fundamental and absolute disagreement between science and religion.
A person who respects science making an absolute claim? An absolute claim that I have just shown is incorrect. Some religious claims are incompatible with science. Others are, and unless the god is a naturally occurring being(Greek/Egyptian/etc. pantheon) than science cannot observe or make any tests concerning the existence of said God.
And finally - science can prove that it's answers genuinely work and genuinely explain things.
Okay.
Whereas every time a religious claim is examined by science, it turns out the religious claim is completely wrong and untrue.
Another baseless, sweeping generalization. My religion claims that humans possess souls. That is a spiritual, supernatural claim that cannot be validated or denied by science. That is for a philosophical evaluation, not scientific.