Should Religion/Religious People Try To Blend Science & Faith

[Calderownz]

Before we get started, let me stress that this isn't an anti-religion or even a pro-science thread. This is simply looking at one facet of religion that really bothers me.

It has to do with science. I really dislike when religious people try to use science as a means to prove their own beliefs. But, what I hate even more is when religious people try to use SOME science to to prove their theories, ignoring OTHER science that doesn't work in their example or theory.

Enter: ICR. Or, The Institute for Creation Research.

http://www.icr.org/

That's their website. This is one of the many institutes that tries to blend legitimate history/science with religious ideas. So, they'll search for something scientific that could theoretically back their claims, ignoring the other scientific evidence that debunks their theories.

In Petersburg, Kentucky, there is a Creation Museum. The museum focuses on trying to give you evidence that man was around during the time that dinosaurs were. At the museum, they even have a man on the back of a dinosaur, riding it like a horse, I suppose.

So... my questions would be..

1. Should religion try to prove their faith is valid using science? Why or why not?

2. If you're a religious person, what do you think of these "methods," so to speak?

2;B. If you're not a religious person, does this bother you as much as it bothers me? Why or why not?

3. Any other thoughts.

Once again, I am not intending for this to be a religion-bashing thread. I just hate when ANYONE tries to involve things that simply shouldn't be involved.

 

[H33LTurn]

In most cases religion is a polar opposite to science, but not always. Sometimes religion is flawed, and sometimes science is flawed. Yes, I believe in the Christian "story" of things and I can admit that our religion has its own flaws. I'm a loose believer. Since religion is mostly man made, it will always contain some input from a source that doesnt quite know what its talking about. For example, the 7 Deadly Sins were determined by a man, they werent on stones that God sent to the earth. That was his input, and if he believes thats the only way to get into heaven then by all means. But now onto what you were saying...

I think just like religion or science there are some cases where theres enough evidence to disprove the other. Like we've all come to accept that theres a higher chance that people are born gay as opposed to made gay, which makes it a disorder/disease and therefore its deemed unjust by God to send people to hell because of a "disease". People bash creation, but if the world had been a billionth of a degree higher or lower the earth would've collapsed into itself during its formation. Now what are the odds that the range of the earth's temperature was so perfectly arranged? I think that you're hatred towards the mix of science and religion is due to the fact of hearing arguments from people who are uneducated in both categories. My friend is a Jehovah's witness, and he's been taught how to determine several scientific discoveries using the Bible. Religion is something that is interpreted by people in a different way, and I think if you use logic you can find the balance for both in your life. It just takes patience, something a lot of people dont have. Thats why they opt for extremes in either one of the two categories.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

^ Yeah, I agree that both science and religion are flawed in places but I think a lot of it's meant to be allegory ... one of my teachers believed that God's '7 days' were not specifically days, but periods of time. Like, the third day could have been the jurassic period, or something (don't ask me, I don't know anything about science). Bear in mind the Bible was written by man's accounts of God, not God himself so it does indeed have flaws. I started to agree with this teacher's viewpoints because they made sense to me, but a lot of people might think that's stupid, I don't know.

Anyway I think it's good to try and blend fact with belief. It prevents either side from becoming too extreme, and if there's one thing I dislike it's extremism or not being open-minded enough to acknowledge a different point of view. God is clever because it set itself up in a way where you can't prove or disprove it; therefore you have to choose whether to believe in it or not. Personally that's all the proof I need; others will probably not accept that, but eh, it's okay. If they're living their lives in a way they're happy with then that's fine. So, in answer to the OP's questions, or the ones that are applicable to me anyway:

1) Should religion try to prove their faith using science?

No, because having to 'prove' it sort of defeats the idea of 'faith'. However I would agree it's wise to keep adjusting your views based on factual knowledge. We know the Big Bang happened; try incorporating that to your beliefs and you should be able to find a way to make it fit.

2.a.) What do you think of these methods?

I don't know. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't know why you'd waste time trying to prove God exists, or that the creation story happened as detailed in the Book. It strikes me as insecure. As I said already, having faith and trying to prove the existence of something are polar opposites: The first is the state of actually believing in something, and the second is a state of wanting to believe in it.

 

[Davi323]

The issue really stems from people trying to make the Bible a science textbook. It most certainly is not a science textbook. That is not it's purpose. Using it as a science book is foolhardy.

I do blend my faith and science, because I believe both reveal different aspects of God's creation. They are NOT polar opposites. The Bible gives us insight as to WHY God does things, science gives us insight as to HOW God does things. If we are to understand God's creation to the best of our ability, we have to realize that there is more than one aspect to it.

Think of it like a crime scene. If you ask the forensic examiner why victim X is dead, he would answer that victim X died because a bullet struck him in the chest. The forensic examiner is concerned with only the concrete facts of the case.

Now, ask the same question to the detective. From the detective's perspective, victim X is dead because he attempted to rob a drug dealer. The detective is concerned with facts, but he is more interested in motive. What led to the gunman firing the shot?

One deals with the what, the other deals with the why. You need both perspectives to fully understand the crime. So it is with creation. Science and faith teach us different things, and are not mutually exclusive at all.

 

[Dagger Dias]

People could try to use science to verify the truth behind their religious beliefs but it might not be as easy as they might think. Nobody is perfect. Therefore no scientific evaluation can be perfect either. Someone might mess up and get the wrong figures or result. I personally think it is better to rely on matching up holy writings/events with historical data from world history. Granted a lot of history has been incorrectly told but if you do enough digging (whether that be with a shovel or research) then you can find the truth. Then you can see if the data matches the events of the religion you believe in. It is a better method than using science due to the issue of potential error that is present in every single scientific evaluation.

 

[LSN80]

1. Should religion try to prove their faith is valid using science? Why or why not?

It doesnt make a difference to me. I don't believe in blinde faith, the act of stepping forward without any empirical proof, but the same thing could be applied to science. Im a scientist of a kind, a psychologist. I deal with the science of the mind. We can look at characteristics of people and use the general labels their actions project according to diagnostic criteria, but we can never be sure. Science does the same thing, aas does religion. There's nothing wrong with combining scientific proof with faith and belief in order further one's beliefs, I in fact encourage people to explore science, the same way I do myself, to understand what they believe better. I see no reason that science can't work hand in hand with religion, rather then scintists and theologians constantly being at odds with one another.

The only problem I have is when someone hides behind religion, or faith, to justify their lack of belief in one over the other. There are many Christians and other people of religious mindset that reject science completely, and those who solely believe in science who completely dismiss those of faith. The life we live is one of self-exploration, and the more we attempt to look at more things as being plausible, rather then ruling them out because they don't sit well with us, the better that journey will be. I firmly believe that.
There's absolutely no reason someone has to be a person of science or of faith exclusively, as both have been shown that they can work well together at times. To dismiss the idea of one without considering the other, and ways they can work together, is foolish.

Once again, I am not intending for this to be a religion-bashing thread. I just hate when ANYONE tries to involve things that simply shouldn't be involved.

You say that you dont intend this to be a religious bashing thread, but I fail to see how its not. Religion isn't simply based on blind faith, heck, Jesus told disciples to look for "scientific wonders and signs", and that "Creation testifies that there is a God." What do you think Jesus was referring to when he said those things? I understand your not religious, and Im sure you look at the Bible as merely a work of fiction. But I don't, and when looking at those words, Jesus is encouraging people to look to science for validation of their beliefs. I just dont see the problem. Science isnt a fool-proof method, like psychology, and neither is blind faith. Where is the harm of using one help the other, and vice versa? Using empirical proof to strengthen ones faith is something that should be perceived as a good thing, not something to turn one's nose down at, as long as its not using one to force beliefs on other people. Everyone should come to their own conclusions, and use whatever means are out there to do so. But to say that science can't be used to prove religion to be true is a fallacy, when so many times it has, and other times science specifically fails to disprove religion. The problem some have with the two intermingling, i find, are only for people who are completely close-minded about religious beliefs, which is what I find to be just as offensive as some who are offended by the idea that the two could POSSIBLY have some correlations.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I don't really see why this is an issue. I believe the bible is a book of morals AND consider myself a christian. I don't think God will go "well you were a good person but....everything that amazing human brain told you to think was that it was a book of morals and you didn't believe it was true so you're going to hell."

In fact, I don't think Jews, Muslims, or athiests or anyone who is a good person is going to hell. The notion of "what matters most is you believe me and have my name next to yours" is more of something a politician would say. Which, it just so happens, politicians and priests were the same thing for a while. Imagine that.

 

[wrestlingfan]

I'm a believer of both Science and Religion and in away I think God made science in a way to connect to man and that in a way he created. Like during the time God made animals, and then finally after those 7 days he made humans, Maybe during that time is where Primates evolved into humans.

 

[shattered dreams]

Faith by definition essentially means belief that is not based on proof. Why people consistently ignore this I have no idea? Science may not be perfect but it is ever evolving. Science takes the imperfections and attempts to improve upon them as quick as possible. Faith tends to take the imperfections and attempt to sweep them under the rug for as long as possible. Science is searching for a justifiable answer while faith looks for a way to justify the answer they already have. They should not be blended at all and faith should be recognized as something that should not govern the areas of our lives that need a rational approach.

 

[Dwayne_Jason]

1. Should religion try to prove their faith is valid using science? Why or why not?

No, no, no, and...am I missing something? Oh yes, NO. Simple fact: Science and religion are two WHOLLY different things. Using one to explain another is wholly ******ed.

Simple fact is God demands you follow him without an explanation, science says you follow it with an explanation. It cannot mix in any way, shape or form.

2. If you're a religious person, what do you think of these "methods," so to speak?

I'm not a religious person, so I can't answer this.

2;B. If you're not a religious person, does this bother you as much as it bothers me? Why or why not?

It doesn't bother me if they try to do it by themselves. If you want to explain god using science, go for it. What I will not stand for, is that to be treated as FACT. Its not fact, its an opinion, and a religious one at that. There shouldn't be any sort of "scientific" evidence, unless science deems it appropriate, that proves God. It should be scientific evidence according to your opinion.

The same should be true for science. If you're looking for a christian god in the universe, take the Pope's permission for what to look for, science can't deem one thing "God" without consulting religion and religion can't "scientifically" prove God without consulting scientific experts.

And if they laugh at you, don't hate.

As for you trying to do it, go for it. But strictly base it on opinion unless an expert concurs with your theory.


3. Any other thoughts.

Once again, I am not intending for this to be a religion-bashing thread. I just hate when ANYONE tries to involve things that simply shouldn't be involved.[/QUOTE]