Is the Debate Between Science and Religion Unnecessary?

[Diogenes]

My friend Gary Conkling writes about the potential conflict between science and relgion.
Question for debate: Is there necessarily conflict between science and relgion?

People with religious beliefs often view science as anti-religious, even as an attack on religion. The tension between scientific inquiry and religious zealotry is real. Scientists focus on questions while zealots settle for answers, sometimes based on dubious evidence or misconstrued history.

There is a path through the tension. Scientists don’t have to dismiss a greater force and zealots have to rely on faith rather than crypto-facts. We could someday figure out how the universe truly works, but still never know how it came to be. The desire – and for many the desperate need – to know there is something larger out there larger than life as we know it can yield an emotional calm and an enhanced ability to deal with very real and present distress.
....
Questions are not disbelief. Probabilities are safer to cling to than facts in assessing the universe. The scientific method and faith are not incompatible.

https://garyconklinglifenotes.wordpress ... UfIEseHtLQ

Is there a religion that seeks truth, rather than declaring it?

[Diogenes]

Today's mainstream science and True Biblical Christianity do not coincide whatsoever.

Now that is refreshing! A Christian apologist who admits his belief system is completely anti factual.
Well done!

[Tcg]

That is one way to lack a belief, but it is not the only way. I am aware of the concept of god/gods, but lack belief in all of the ones I have knowledge of.

So, stay with me now.

You believe that the gods, that you have knowledge of, do not exist.

Correct?

Nope. I lack belief that they do. Are we done with the Strawman arguments yet?


Tcg

[Runner]

Nope. I lack belief that they do. Are we done with the Strawman arguments yet?

We're definitely done playing your very insincere games.

An admission on your part is not required for all to see that your position of argument was thoroughly destroyed.

God bless.

[Diogenes]

People now are leaving religions in droves, not by choice, but by the conviction that what they were told is false.

Of course they are, and have been for decades now.

Modern mainstream churchianity is a lie.

That's why one must study the Bible diligently, with the gift of Faith and Holy Spirit discernment, in order to discover the real Truth about what God's Word teaches. NONE of the churches today teach that. NONE of them.

There is a familiar pattern on this forum. Jose Fly has mentioned it.
A new member (who may have, for example, just joined today, fires off, say... 48 posts on his first day, using all the cliche anti atheist and strawman posts we've all seen ad nauseam then makes it clear he also disagrees with all churches. He supports none of his claims, but stirs up a flurry of responses, then turns on all versions of Christianity too [except his own] ("Modern mainstream churchianity is a lie.... NONE of the churches today teach that. NONE"); then starts with insults and, slowly gets ignored, ups the ante, then eventually is banned. But before that they reveal they follow the AIG script, just plugging in their out of context quote mines as their own. D)

Runner wrote:
A very honest Atheist, and author, George Klein, made this claim:

“My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith . . . . The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy.”

[url]https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-is-religion/[/url]

[Diogenes]

It may be useful from time to time to remind us all of 'trolling."

... a troll is a person who posts or makes inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages online (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, an online video game), or in real life, with the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception. The behavior is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or purposefully causing confusion or harm to other people....

"Definition of: trolling". PCMAG.COM. Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. 2009.
Buckels, E.E.; Trapnell, P.D.; Paulhus, D.L. (2014). "Trolls Just Want to Have Fun: (520722015-006)".

It is important to remember that trolls should not be called out as trolls. They should just be ignored. Also, a suspected troll may not actually be a troll. They may just be... ... 'special.'

[otseng]

Nope, I don't, and I am not alone in that.

Long as you're happy and blissful in your ign- ... well, your misunderstanding.

Is being alone an issue for you.

Do you have insecurities about that?

Many do, of course. No judgment.

Moderator Warning



These are considered personal and uncivil comments. Please review the Rules and abide by them.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

No tension. And yes, the church says we must interpret the bible in light of the facts. Science gives us facts that we cannot ignore. The church also has a philosophy, scholasticism, and it does precisely because it seeks truth of all things.

Scientism however cannot lead to all truth if there is truth beyond physical observations.

[The Barbarian]

It is important to remember that trolls should not be called out as trolls. They should just be ignored. Also, a suspected troll may not actually be a troll. They may just be... ... 'special.'

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.

[Eloi]

Science and religion have not any debate as you want to make believe. Maybe the debate is of the atheist militancy against religions.

There is a scale on how people accept things as real/truth, and the scale goes from simple credulity to factual demonstrations. Religious people can go all the scale, like men of science also can. There are men who say they are science-men and still accept things just because someone else told them to believe it. The same way, there are religious men who think more rationally than men who claim to be men of science.

It is evident that science is not related to atheism at all. Actually, there are people who, although they claim to be scientists, only disguise their inability to confront reality to the point of denying the most obvious facts ... Perhaps they are more demagogues (similar to religious apologists) than men of science. Some even confuse knowledge/science with the ability to be dishonest and go unnoticed through falacies.

So, again: Science and religion have not any debate.

[brunumb]

Actually, there are people who, although they claim to be scientists, only disguise their inability to confront reality to the point of denying the most obvious facts ...

When you make sweeping claims like that it becomes necessary for you to offer support for them as well. Please give us some specific cases where self-claimed scientists have been unable to confront reality and denied obvious facts.