The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sizemik

  This is assuming the author of those verses and books meant for them to be taken literally to begin with; or that they even WERE taken literally...

  Well if you include the first Christian himself, then I would disagree strongly with that statement. Jesus constantly referred to the writings of Moses as if they were literal. His audience made no challenge to this. The literal interpretations have been gradually broken down . . . not the other way round, in spite of the neo-fundamentalism that exists today.

  Genesis got it right about the universe having a beginning, rather than being eternal. Scientists didn't even consider it as a possibility for a while, because it was too close to the biblical version. But that was the scientists' bias.

  Sure . . . nearly all "scientists" at one time were religious people, so had there own false premises to overcome. But personal bias is only part of the story. The threat of execution by religious zealots who's authority was threatened probably played a more influential role than genuine personal bias. Science demands you place unsupported belief in the work-in-progress category at least. No individual is content with conflicting beliefs . . . least of all those dedicated to science.
• 

  Finkelstein

  The most that science really has ever done is disprove a literal rendering of some books/verses.

  The bible should be perceived as a book of embellishment by people who were too ignorant to do anything

  but embellish stories of their select gods.

  Science has brought enlightenment to the world we live , the same world the ancient people lived in so many years ago.

  In a analytical sense, yes science has refuted religion, but one should also consider what plausible benefits religion

  has done for benefit of humanity in a sociological sense.
• 

  sizemik

  but one should also consider what plausible benefits religion h as done for benefit of humanity in a sociological sense.

  I'm trying, but drawing a blank . . . care to name one, just to get us started?
• 

  tec

  Well if you include the first Christian himself, then I would disagree strongly with that statement. Jesus constantly referred to the writings of Moses as if they were literal. His audience made no challenge to this. The literal interpretations have been gradually broken down . . . not the other way round, in spite of the neo-fundamentalism that exists today.

  This is also an assumption. (an assumption that the audience did not also know that he referred to allegory or symbolism... much like we might refer to aesop's fables as if they are true, to relay a truth or lesson)

  Even if he did so, us assuming or assigning his motivations for doing so are also... well, an assumption. Perhaps the moral lesson or truth was more important than fighting over the literal, allegorical, or symbolic method of delivery? Perhaps some needed the allegory - a story presented in simple terms - to understand the truth behind it.

  Sure . . . nearly all "scientists" at one time were religious people, so had there own false premises to overcome. But personal bias is only part of the story. The threat of execution by religious zealots who's authority was threatened probably played a more influential role

  than genuine personal bias. Science demands you place unsupported belief in the work-in-progress category at least. No individual is content with conflicting beliefs . . . least of all those dedicated to science.

  You understand that I was stating the bias of the scientists was in NOT considering anything that might resemble the genesis account? So they would have been acting against the zealots; not submitting to them... simply because they did not want to consider anything close to the biblical account?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sizemik

  Thanks for the correction Tammy . . . But I find it hard to accept that science deliberately skirted the beginings of the universe simply because it might give the book of Genesis credibility. Science is not motivated this way.
• 

  designs

  What do-

  Mungo

  Sumeria

  Olmec

  Syria

  Jericho

  Yangshou

  ...have in common?
• 

  ziddina

  "You understand that I was stating the bias of the scientists was in NOT considering anything that might resemble the genesis account? So they would have been acting against the zealots; not submitting to them... simply because they did not want to consider anything close to the biblical account? ..." tec, page #5, post #9415

  Scientists have considered the Genesis account of creation.

  There are many, many flaws in that account.

  First, the form the earth initially took did NOT involve liquid water on the surface. Liquid water did not condense to form oceans on the face of the young planet until at least 200 million years after the earth coalesced.

  Secondly, some source of "light" appeared on the FIRST day, but the sun, moon and stars supposedly weren't formed until the FOURTH day...

  Thirdly, the so-called "separation" between the waters "above" and the waters "below" - the waters "above" cannot physically exist. Gravity would yank said waters "above" down to the earth's surface almost immediately...

  And that's just the beginning of the flawed science in the Genesis account...
• 

  tec

  But I find it hard to accept that science deliberately skirted the beginings of the universe simply because it might give the book of Genesis credibility. Science is not motivated this way.

  Physicist Laurence Krauss said that scientists had stayed away from looking into anything like a beginning to the universe (theorizing instead on the eternity of the universe) because it resembled too closely what the bible said about beginnings. He said it during a panel that he was doing with Richard Dawkins (who said nothing to counter it). The thread is on here somewhere.

  Science does not work that way... and scientific evidence prevailed. But people do work that way.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  I was also very suprised, Size.
• 

  sizemik

  LOL . . . hence the title of this thread.

  Be careful of attributing to science, what scientists may say in a debate. Science is not a person or people.