Science vs. Religion - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

By Agent Steel
It should be clear that to everyone that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that it was created in 6 days. If you read the bible which was written by God himself, it states this fact.

Yet many atheists, such as some guy by the name of "Stephen Hawking", claim that the Universe is billions of years old instead.


Now honestly people, who should we believe here? The most powerful being in the entire Universe? Or some scientist freak in a wheelchair??
User avatar
By fuser
First of all, I am an atheist, then not every religious guy believe in Earth being 6,000 years old. Many respectable scientists and Scientific groups can have and do have ridiculous views on lots of issues.

Science and religion aren't really supposed to be competitors, they are looking for different things, the problem arises when religion starts interfering in Science or tries to substitute it which it absolutely can't.

Finally, this is a very loaded question.
User avatar
By Wellsy
Facts of nature do not contradict faith unless one chooses to interpret things literally.
Faith is fine but it exists beyond the bounds of reason and shouldn’t try to emulate reason.
Galileo’s epistemology is impressively sophisticated and balanced in relation to the developments of the subsequent 200 years. What is the essence of what he has to say? It is the separation of ethics from knowledge (of nature, history, etc), of the separation of science from the legitimate domain of the Church; he claimed the right of the people to investigate profane matters, questions which were capable of falsification in experience or reason, while the Holy Fathers could confine themselves to determining what was necessary to gain access to eternal life and avoid damnation. Bacon also achieved this same separation in England, claiming that the way to perceive God’s Will was to observe his Works.
As I said, Galileo was a very sophisticated thinker, and in many ways centuries ahead of his time. In the course of defending philosophical materialism against the Church, he even goes so far as refuting the “economy of thought” argument which would appear in natural scientific philosophy three hundred years later. He made important statements on all sorts of matters both natural-scientific and philosophical — but the Essence of what he said was the liberation of the knowledge from Scripture, from Ethics. He held that making of this or that proposition about nature could not be sinful, but only objectively true or false.
It should be noted that Galileo did not call into question the right of the Church to rule within its own domain, but that matters which can be demonstrated as true or false in Nature cannot be the subject of Scripture. He was forced to recant, but the Inquisition could not prevent Galileo’s triumph. They could not prevent Galileo’s triumph, simply because people were out there with lenses and mechanical devices, investigating nature and demonstrating the falsity of conventional wisdom, and no Ecclesiastical decree was going to stop them.

Spoiler: show
he motion of the earth and stability of the sun could never be against Faith or Holy Scripture, if this proposition were correctly proved to be physically true by philosophers, astronomers, and mathematicians, with the help of sense experiences, accurate observations, and necessary demonstrations. However, in this case, if some passages of Scripture were to sound contrary, we would have to say that this is due to the weakness of our mind, which is unable to grasp the true meaning of Scripture in this particular case. This is the common doctrine, and it is entirely right, since one truth cannot contradict another truth. On the other hand, whoever wants to condemn it judicially must first demonstrate it to be physically false by collecting the reasons against it.
Now, one wants to know where to begin in order to ascertain its falsity, that is, whether from the authority of Scripture or from the refutation of the demonstrations and observations of philosophers and astronomers. I answer that one must start from the place which is safest and least likely to bring about a scandal; this means beginning with physical and mathematical arguments. For if the reasons proving the earth’s motion arc found fallacious, and the contrary ones conclusive, then we have already become certain of the falsity of this proposition and the truth of the opposite, which we now say corresponds to the meaning of Scripture; so one would be free to condemn the false proposition and there would be no danger. But if those reasons arc found true and necessary, this will not bring any harm to the authority of Scripture; instead we shall have been cautioned that due to our ignorance we had not grasped the true sense of Scripture, and that we can learn this meaning with the help of the newly acquired physical truth. Therefore, beginning with the arguments is safe in any case. On the other hand, if we were to fix only on what seemed to us the true and certain meaning of Scripture, and we were to go on to condemn such a proposition without examining the strength of the arguments, what a scandal would follow if sense experiences and reasons were to show the opposite? And who would have brought confusion to the Holy Church ? Those who had suggested the greatest consideration of the arguments, or those who had disparaged them? One can see, then, which road is safer.
Moreover, we admit that a physical proposition which has been proved true by physical and mathematical demonstrations can never contradict Scripture, but that in such a case it is the weakness of our mind which prevents us from grasping its true meaning. On the other hand, whoever wants to use the authority of the same passages of Scripture to confute and prove false the same proposition would commit the error called “begging the question.” For, the true meaning of Scripture being in doubt in the light of the arguments, one cannot take it as clear and certain in order to refute the same proposition; instead one must cripple the arguments and find the fallacies with the help of other reasons and experiences and morc certain observations. When thc factual and physical truth has been found in this manner, then, and not before, can one be assured of the true meaning of Scripture and safely use it. Thus the safe road is to begin with the arguments, confirming the true and refuting the fallacious ones.
If the earth de facto moves, we cannot change nature and arrange for it not to move. But we can rather easily remove the opposition of Scripture with the mere admission that we do not grasp its true meaning. Therefore, the way to be sure not to err is to begin with astronomical and physical investigations, and not with scriptural ones.
I am always told that, in interpreting the passages of Scripture relevant to this point, all Fathers agree to the meaning which is simplest and corresponds to the literal meaning; hence, presumably, it is improper to give them another meaning or to change the common interpretation, because this would amount to accusing the Fathers of carelessness or negligence. I answer by admitting that the Fathers indeed deserve reasonable and proper respect, hut I add that we have an excuse for them very readily: it is that on this subject they never interpreted Scripture differently from the literal meaning, because at their time the opinion of the earth’s motion was totally buried and no one even talked about it, let alone wrote about it or maintained it. But there is no trace of negligence by the Fathers for not thinking about what was completely hidden. That they did not think about it is clear from the fact that in their writings one cannot find even a word about this opinion. And if anyone were to say that they considered it, this would make its condemnation more dangerous; for after considering it, not only did they not condemn it, but they did not express any doubt about it.
Thus the defence of the Fathers is readily available and very easy. On the contrary, it would be very difficult or impossible to excuse or exonerate from a similar charge of carelessness the Popes, Councils, and Congregations of the Index of the last eighty years, if this doctrine were erroneous and deserving of condemnation; for they have let this opinion circulate in a book which was first written on orders from a Pope, and then printed on orders from a cardinal and a bishop, dedicated to another Pope, and, most important, received by the Holy Church, so that one cannot say that it had remained unknown. If, then, the inappropriateness of charging our highest authorities with negligence is to be taken into account, as it should, Let us make sure that in trying to escape one absurdity we do not fall into a greater one.
But assume now that someone regards it as inappropriate to abandon the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, even in the case of physical propositions not discussed by them and whose opposite they did not even consider; I then ask what one should do if necessary demonstrations showed the facts of nature to be the opposite. Which of the two decrees should be changed? The one which stipulates that no proposition can be both true and erroneous, or the other one which obliges us to regard as articles of faith physical propositions supported by the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers? It seems to me, if I am not mistaken, that it would be safer to modify this second decree than to be forced to hold as an article of faith a physical proposition which had been demonstrated with conclusive reasons to be factually false in nature. It also seems to me that one could say that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers should have absolute authority in the case of propositions which they aired, and for which no contrary demonstrations exist and it is certain that none could ever exist. I do not bring in the fact that it is very clear that the Council requires only that one agree with the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers “in matters of faith and morals, etc.”
When such an object (stone or bronze idol, etc.) ceases to be regarded as “God himself” and acquires the meaning of an “external symbol” of this God, when it is perceived not as the immediate subject of the action ascribed to it, but merely as a “symbol” of something else outwardly in no way resembling the symbol, then man’s consciousness takes a step forward on the path to understanding the essence of things.
For this reason Kant himself and Hegel, who is completely in agreement with him on this point, consider the Protestant version of Christianity to be a higher stage in the development of the religious consciousness than the archaic Catholicism, which had, indeed, not progressed very far from the primitive fetishism of the idol-worshippers. The very thing that distinguishes the Catholic from the Protestant is that the Catholic tends to take everything depicted in religious paintings and Bible stories literally, as an exact representation of events that occurred in “the external world” (God as a benevolent old man with a beard and a shining halo round his head, the birth of Eve as the actual conversion of Adam’s rib into a human being, etc., etc.). The Protestant, on the other hand, seeing “idolatry” in this interpretation, regards such events as allegories that have an “internal”, purely ideal, moral meaning.
User avatar
By Nonsense
[quote="Wellsy"]Facts of nature do not contradict faith unless one chooses to interpret things literally.
Faith is fine but it exists beyond the bounds of reason and shouldn’t try to emulate reason".[quote]

NONSENSE - The second sentence negates the first sentence, which is reality turned on it's head.
It's 'faith' in religion, that interprets the 'facts of nature' to give credence to the creed of religion that has no basis in rhyme or reason.

It's a universally observed truth, that 'religion' interprets things 'literally', to suit it's agenda of brainwashing the ignorant & vulnerable.
The NONSENSE that sees the Catholic Church 'beatifying' 'miraculous' acts of 'healing' or 'witnessing' 'miracles' are clear examples of the idolatry or falsity that is 'religion' or 'faith'.

SCIENCE in contrast, based on what is called the 'Scientific Method', based upon 'theory', 'experimentation' & 'observation'.

Any of those three can be repeated by experiment or 'observation' & the 'theory' can be modified to accord with the experiment or observation.

NOTHING in science is immutable, ALL is amenable to reason, unlike 'faith' or 'religion', for which truthful observation or evidence is totally absent, a void filled by wishful thinking.

By Sivad
Scientism is a cult. The scientistic materialists are on the same level as the young earth creationists, they're just as dense and full of shit as religious fundies.
Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

I'm not sure what this has anything to do with me[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

@Doug64 You still have not provided your scien[…]

Election 2020

And a look at what massive mail-in voting can mean[…]

Stop hating poor people, it's not a good look.