My Rant About Science vs. Religion

[SillyEvee]

OK, here it is. It's long and it gives a lot of examples. Feel free to skip some paragraphs if you don't care about the examples I'm giving.

I am a Jewish, G-d-loving, G-d-fearing scientist. Deal with it. I do.

Science and religion both have some of the same objectives, true. They both describe the natural world, to some extent. I'm not really sure why reasonable people can't reconcile their versions, but maybe I just give people too much credit, thinking them reasonable when they aren't. Perhaps this is particularly dangerous on a teen site (which I say from the wise old age of 17).

But mostly what I don't get is that people continue to believe that you can't be rational or logical or like testing things out if you believe in G-d! Seriously! I've just desined an experiment to see the effects of electron fluenence and flux have on the size of platinum particles created by electron beam-induced depostion (this is for real), but I have no trouble celebrating the actual miricle of the Giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai next week. Yup, I believe that G-d spoke to Moses and gave him the five books of the Torah, and I also believe that the quantam model of the atom is a pretty darned good description of the atom. On top of that, I believe that Schroddinger's cat is simultaneously alive and dead until the moment I open the box, and there's only a 99.9999% chance that that cat's even in that box. That darned cat could be anywhere other than in my sight, until I see him or can otherwise measure his position.

Seriously, to believe a scientific theory is to accept that it's the best description we've got so far. Everyone accepts that scientific theories will be improved over time, right? The atomic model is a prime example! "Hm..." said Rutherford "I wonder why these atoms behave the way they do? Hey, this electron-cloud idea makes a lot of sense!" "But wait!" said Bohr "They seemed to be arranged in identifiable patterns! It's probably a lot like these rings...nice, eh?" And then, a bunch of scientists got together and were all like "Hey, those rings were nice, Niels, but they're not quite the right shape. It's more like this super-cool quantum model. Great work laying the foundations, though." And now, well, what's inside a quark? Strings of energy? 11 dimensions? I wonder...

Honestly, religion is about how to go about your business. Science is about how things other than humans go about their business--how the Earth orbits the sun, which is part of a galaxy which is revolving around a central black hole, which is only one of many galaxies.

Nothing in Genesis contradicts the idea that there are multiple galaxies. And really, Genesis never gives an absolute timeline for creation. It just says "and the darkness and the light were the nth day." It never says "and twenty-four, sixty-minute hours later (each minute of which had sixty seconds), it was yet another day." What does "a day" mean if there's nothing around to live it? Who's to say that the "first day" in which G-d created the earth and the sky wasn't a quadrillion years long as we keep track of time now? Genesis tells that life started with aquatic plants and animals, just like science. (Well, current theories say it all started with aquatic bacteria, but as any biologist knows, all aquatic plants need bacteria to live, so it's not unreasonable to say that of course the bacteria came first, but who the f cares? we don't eat the bacteria! We eat the seaweed!)

I see no reason that our scientific understanding of things can't be compatible with belief in a creator god, regardless of who that god is. Even if you believe in god at all, you can't explain everything with science. And it's all fine and well to say that you think science will explain it later and we just haven't gotten there yet, but there's no way you'll ever be able to figure out how it all started. I make the leap of Fatih to G-d. If you don't want to, that your own business, but don't tell me that you won't because you're "logical," "rational," or you "like things that can be proven and tested." Well, we're not going to get a proveable answer to that question, so your theory of "I dunno but humans will probably eventually figure it out" is no more creditable than my "I believe G-d did it."

PLUS, I also like things that can be proven and be tested. I believe in the validity of the scientific method. If someone's gonna tell me that smoking cures cancer, I wanna see the scientific studies that back it up. I'll be skeptical if I don't see proof because humans make mistakes when they're on their own. The more humans we have doing the same task together, the less likely they are to make a mistake in their final product right? That's why we have editors.

G-d doesn't make mistakes. He gave the Torah to Moses and edited it while Moses was writing it down. It doesn't have mistakes. If you're finding fault in it, you need to revise your interpretation. Just like when Bohr found fault in Rutherford's model. Did he say "This is total baloney!" and throw it out? No. He found what still worked in the model and made adjustments as new facts came to light. When we have new findings that contradict parts of our old models, we fix the model and we keep what's useful.

When you find religion in conflict with science, you don't have to pick one. You just have to take a look at the way you're looking at the science you've found and the religion you follow. Why create a conflict where there isn't any? Scientists say that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, WAY before modern man existed, but Genesis says that land animals were created on the fifth day and man on the sixth, eh? Well, let's look at the way we use the word "day." G-d tried out the idea of huge reptiles, didn't much like it, killed most of em and turned the rest into birds. Seems compatible to me.

OK, so tell me that I'm just blurring lines in order to make my beliefs seems real. Um...OK. I am. Those lines were drawn by humans, too, you know. What if G-d told Moses that the darkness and the light were the nth period in the creation of the world? Moses got "period of time consisting of darkness and light" and called it "day?" Anyone every notice that there are six geological periods since The Big Bang? Ever think that the background radiation we observe in Deep Space is the result of G-d's creation of the Earth and everything else?

Rant over for now, but I'll keep going if someone wants to contest one of my points. I'll ignore name-calling and stupidity, though, so if you want to post something in that vein, I suggest you make another thread. You can call it SillyEvee's Too Silly for Words if you like.

Sorry to be a bitch about this, but I'm sick of my scientist friends assuming I'm an atheist and my religious friends being shocked that I'm in AP Bio loving evolution.

[Gram Negative]

Seems pretty logical to me but I doubt that creationists will agree with you.

[Hyper Sonic]

The solar day was in effect long before the Bible was written and the Babylonians (again before AD 0) are credited with using a 7 day week, thus when the Bible and probably the other books were written the day and week were well defined.

Apart from that and any references to it, it's logical. Science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive but in areas of conflict science has always and likely always will disprove religion

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Gram Negative

Seems pretty logical to me but I doubt that creationists will agree with you.

Same here.

[Algernon]

Ha ha. Creationist here. And also agrees with the above statement, I didn't even have to read it all but for the most part I agree. It's what I believe as well... And sadly. Some believers will probably hate us for that.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by xHolyValorx

Ha ha. Creationist here. And also agrees with the above statement, I didn't even have to read it all but for the most part I agree. It's what I believe as well... And sadly. Some believers will probably hate us for that.

True, however, you're among the exception (somewhat.. I haven't read enough of your posts to conclude that). However, I'm waiting for other believers to start having a go at it.

[Union Of V]

An uncle (well great-uncle) of mine told me that science explains so many things; religion guesses the rest. That's how I see the whole science-religion thing, and by the look of things you too. It's when science and religions clash somehow that you get major problems. But that's people's fault, not science or religion's. The two were never meant to clash.

[Algernon]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

True, however, you're among the exception (somewhat.. I haven't read enough of your posts to conclude that). However, I'm waiting for other believers to start having a go at it.

You're right. I do think there are a few on TH that would recognize this as what they believe, but not sure that they'll show.

[silentmuffin]

Originally Posted by SillyEvee

Nothing in Genesis contradicts the idea that there are multiple galaxies. And really, Genesis never gives an absolute timeline for creation. It just says "and the darkness and the light were the nth day." It never says "and twenty-four, sixty-minute hours later (each minute of which had sixty seconds), it was yet another day." What does "a day" mean if there's nothing around to live it? Who's to say that the "first day" in which G-d created the earth and the sky wasn't a quadrillion years long as we keep track of time now? Genesis tells that life started with aquatic plants and animals, just like science. (Well, current theories say it all started with aquatic bacteria, but as any biologist knows, all aquatic plants need bacteria to live, so it's not unreasonable to say that of course the bacteria came first, but who the f cares? we don't eat the bacteria! We eat the seaweed!)

I have been saying this for years. A day is only 24 hours for the people who decided what a "day" means, what an "hour" means, etc. I feel like the "day" in the Bible could have been millions of years in the way we measure time. I believe in divine creation and in science. I don't know why it's so hard to believe that maybe the reason things are logical and follow rules of physics is because God set those rules into motion. Isn't the fact that things follow rules in the universe pretty awesome and amazing to consider? If this was all just chance or random happenings in an infinite vastness, I would expect more things to be random, not follow observable, quantified laws and rules like so many things do. But that's just me.

[SillyEvee]

Lyndsay, I really wish you would stop copying and pasting sentences from my brain. It's really disconcerting :P

Sonic: I'm not sure why're you're talking about AD when dating Jewish things. (Incidentally, I don't think there is a 0 AD. I think it went from 1 BC to 1 AD. I read that somewhere, but I can't remember the source or if I trust it.) Encyclopedia Britannica tells me that little is known about the Jewish calendar before the Babylonian exile, but that the one we (Jews) use today was developped in the 10th century BC (by the Gregorian calendar).

And when you say "science has and almost definitely will disprove religion" when the two appear to conflict...it makes me think you're missing my point. My point is not that the religion is wrong, but that people are misinterpreting something along the line. Since we, as a society, trust things backed by scientific evidence and we, as Jews, trust things backed by the Torah, we know their must be something wrong with the way we're interpreting the information we're getting from these two trusted sources.

And a question about the term "Creationist." Having read my post, who thinks I'm a Creationist? I honeslty had never head the word before I came to the States and am not entirely sure what it means...

[Hyper Sonic]

I was trying to say the day and the week were defined before Genesis was written making the latter reference the former thus conflicting with science.

I think I get what you're saying, I just meant that in general every time a scientific theory and a religious theory have coincided science has won (the heliocentric solar system for example)

A Creationist is someone who believed God created everything and everyone in 7 days according to the Genesis account - they are often disbelieving of evolution by natural selection and the possibility of the Big Bang

[silentmuffin]

I'm not too familiar with scripture, but can anyone point to where it says the earth is the center of the solar system?

I know Genesis 1:1 says God created the heaven and the earth, and then Genesis 1:3 says there was light, which seems to infer earth was created before the sun. But personally, I consider "heaven" to mean "heavens" meaning all of space outside earth, which includes the sun. It doesn't say the sun was giving off light yet either. And the earth was "without form and void" so it really wasn't even earth yet; maybe just the rocks and substances that eventually made it earth.

Then the light was separated from the darkness - he decided the earth would rotate so part of it would be in sunlight and part in darkness (ie day and night). Basically I believe this was the creation of gravity and the laws of celestial bodies rotating and revolving. Then everything started coming together, creating the "firmament" and placing waters around it. Then there was the great light and the lesser light - so He made the sun give off sunlight and other stars further away to light the night and guide us. And so on and so forth.

I certainly don't think anything can be taken at face value, but when I think about the process of it all, it actually fits in my mind. I'm not casting science aside, I just think the laws that guide science were first put in place by God.

[Hyper Sonic]

And who said I was talking about scripture?

Religious leaders locked Copernicus up and forced him to retract his statement that the Sun was the centre of the solar system because the theory was that the earth was at the centre.

Religion =/= Scripture. The former is based on the latter but on it's own the latter is just a text document like this post. If enough people saw this as divine the it would become scripture

Edit: this point only applies to Christianity

Edit 2: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

the first two imply the Earth is set in space and does not orbit the sun as that would be movement

[Smitten]

To add something further to sonic's post... (Referring to Christianity)
The Bible was only written 600 years after Christ's death by the Romans. It was commissioned because the promises of this guy "Jesus" had spread by word of mouth and what he had said was very attractive to the poor who has crappy lives. this afterlife in "heaven" was very attractive to the poor because it allowed them to accept and submit to how life is and look forward to being invited into this "Heaven" club. The Romans commissioned these beliefs because they helped maintain order and kept the people at bay. Quite a bit was simply thought up by them and put in to cater to their societal needs.
People treat this book as the direct word of g-d, that makes me laugh.
its full of bull sh-

[SillyEvee]

Religion is the opiate of the people, blah blah blah. Sorry, Smitten, but Marx came up with that theory first.
I do agree with some of the content, if not the language of your post, though.
My initial post refers only to the Torah, which was written LONG before the Christian additions.
While I do agree that religion is a useful tool in crowd control, I don't think it necessarily follows that it's nothing MORE than a useful tool to subdue the masses. Christianity has a lot more of that, traditionally, than Judaism at any rate, and perhaps than most other religions.
There are a few technicalities in your post though. The NT was written in Greek, wasn't it? Romans spoke Latin, no? And they didn't exactly invent the concepts of loving thy neighbour (that's actually in the OT, too) or an eternal soul (see all other major world religions) OR that good behaviour leads to rewards in later life. Classical Greek and Roman mythology contained an immortal soul, a heaven-like afterlife (the Elysian fields) and a hell-like one (Hades--a word sometimes used to refer to Christian Hell in poetry).

[Adean]

Is the Noah's ark story essentially the same? Noah was told to gather up two of every animal? If so, how did that work? Is there evidence for the great flood? Is it metaphorical?

The biggest problem I have is when they believe that every word is true. The world flooded, people were turned into salt, men turned staffs into snakes, etc.

[Blackwing]

We probably will never know the truth to Noahs story without Evidence of the Ark its just a legend.

[Adean]

Originally Posted by EDGE

We probably will never know the truth to Noahs story without Evidence of the Ark its just a legend.

Well, the first step is whether or not you take it as a myth or as fact. If it's supposed to be representative of something else, then there's not much debate. Taking as fact is a different matter.

[Blackwing]

A fact is truth the bible is supported by religious ideas.

[SillyEvee]

Mary: Noah was actually told to gather up several pairs of each animal.
Gen 7:1-7:3
1. And the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, for it is you that I have seen as a righteous man before Me in this generation.
2. Of all the clean animals you shall take for yourself seven pairs, a male and its mate, and of the animals that are not clean, two, a male and its mate.
3. Also, of the fowl of the heavens, seven pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive on the face of the earth.

He just loaded the animals two-by-two. He actually took more than two of some of the animals. Also, there is a ton of scientific evidence for a great flood that covered a lot of Babylon a while ago (I saw it on the History Channel a while ago). Did it cover the entire globe? Science doesn't think so. I'm not sure what the Torah thinks, to be honest. It says the rain was on the earth, but it doesn't capitalize it as though it were a name. Is it a ledgend? I don't know. I think it's most likely to be an embellished telling of a true story.

Zack: your comment is both meaningless and untrue. A fact is just what a bunch of people have decided is likely the truth. Merriam-Webster tells us that "fact" is a noun meaning "something that is undisputably the case." If we're going to take that definition, Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a fact, since there are quite a few people in the Bible Belt of America who are glad to dispute that for you. For a really long time, it was a fact that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Nobody disputed that until Columbus. In fact, only very recently have religious ideas and scientific ones become separated. Newton was a G-d-fearing man. To Newton, G-d's existence was fact. This is the man who first described gravity as a force and invented differential calculus.
I bet a lot of Christians would tell you that religious ideas are supported by the Bible (not the other way around), which is supported by G-d himself. And if G-d doesn't deliver truth, who does? Men who thought the Earth was flat?

[Gram Negative]

Originally Posted by EDGE

A fact is truth the bible is supported by religious ideas.

huh?

----------------------------------

[Hyper Sonic]

Originally Posted by EDGE

A fact is truth. The bible is supported by religious ideas.

Adding the red bit is how I interpreted it

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by Adean

Is the Noah's ark story essentially the same? Noah was told to gather up two of every animal? If so, how did that work? Is there evidence for the great flood? Is it metaphorical?

The biggest problem I have is when they believe that every word is true. The world flooded, people were turned into salt, men turned staffs into snakes, etc.

There is evidence for a flood, although it's still being debated and considered somewhat controversial. The Deluge Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

It is possible that this could be the great flood all the major religions talk about, as in 5600 BC, a flood of this magnitude could very well have been seen as covering the world.

[SillyEvee]

Thanks, Jess, for doing the legwork I didn't have the time to do earlier. In case anyone's interested, I found this article, too, from the NY times in '96.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/sc...ng-s-rise.html

[Adean]

It's not just the taking of two animals. All the fowls of the heavens? How would Noah sustain an ark that size? Especially if water flooded over a sill (not rained) for 300 days like the theory suggested?

Plus, '"For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge. We have found this to be incorrect."'

Like if it is meant to be a legend or metaphorical, then that's fine. If it's just a region that flooded, I'm a bit more okay with that. There's another theory that they based it off of a king who built a barge and floated down a flooded river. I don't remember which river or where though.

Like there's nothing wrong with an inspiring story.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by EDGE

A fact is truth the bible is supported by religious ideas.

Well... yes that is sort of obvious. The bible is based on religious ideas, and a fact has some element of truth to it. However.... I'm completely lost as to the relevance and even more lost as to what the point of this is. Care to explain?

[Gram Negative]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

There is evidence for a flood, although it's still being debated and considered somewhat controversial. The Deluge Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

It is possible that this could be the great flood all the major religions talk about, as in 5600 BC, a flood of this magnitude could very well have been seen as covering the world.

There were multiple great floods in every culture.

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by Gram Negative

There were multiple great floods in every culture.

That's the point. It's so prevalent, that it's very possible there was a large flood, which the various cultures in the area interpreted as being sent by god.

[Gram Negative]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

That's the point. It's so prevalent, that it's very possible there was a large flood, which the various cultures in the area interpreted as being sent by god.

Yep and that coincides with every other natural disaster. When the tsunami wiped out coastal cities, religious leaders said it was a punishment from God. What a crock of sh!t.

[SillyEvee]

What a crock of sh!t.

Dude! That is so disrespectful! What makes you think that's even a little bit acceptable? It's one thing to say "I don't believe that." It's another to deliberately and with explicit language insult another person's beliefs. That is so not classy.

Mary: the answers to all your questions from a religious standpoint are, of course, because G-d wanted it to be so. (That's the standard answer to pretty much every religious question, lol.) That's if you're taking a literal interpretation, where G-d has a hand in everything and every word of the Torah is literal truth. If you don't believe that G-d can do anything, then there's no reason to take every word as literal truth and it becomes an embellished, inspiring story where the message, not the details are important.

[Hyper Sonic]

Originally Posted by SillyEvee

Dude! That is so disrespectful! What makes you think that's even a little bit acceptable? It's one thing to say "I don't believe that." It's another to deliberately and with explicit language insult another person's beliefs. That is so not classy.

Mary: the answers to all your questions from a religious standpoint are, of course, because G-d wanted it to be so. (That's the standard answer to pretty much every religious question, lol.) That's if you're taking a literal interpretation, where G-d has a hand in everything and every word of the Torah is literal truth. If you don't believe that G-d can do anything, then there's no reason to take every word as literal truth and it becomes an embellished, inspiring story where the message, not the details are important.

Because it's true

[Algernon]

Originally Posted by Gram Negative

Yep and that coincides with every other natural disaster. When the tsunami wiped out coastal cities, religious leaders said it was a punishment from God. What a crock of sh!t.

Hm. And it's also a coincidence that the world is covered mostly with water, right?

[Hyper Sonic]

Originally Posted by xHolyValorx

Hm. And it's also a coincidence that the world is covered mostly with water, right?

No, it's called condensation and it makes more sense than "God did it"

[Blackwing]

Where's the evidence of Noah? Even better his Ark?

[SillyEvee]

I'm not trying to convince atheists to believe in the literal truth of the Torah. That's just foolish! But I will take offense if someone calls someone else's beliefs a crock of shit! I don't give an F if it's true or not, Sonic. It's juvenile and totally not in keeping with the spirit of the thread, the forum, or TH in general. You can disagree without being disrespectful and to disagree profanely is just tiresome and doesn't further discussion.

Zack: your only "evidence" against him or the ark is imporobability. There's no way that'll stand up to scientific scrutiny either. I have non-scientific evidence of their existence: the Torah. In my book, that's better than "I don't believe the Torah, therefore I believe the opposite of what it says in the absense of another source."

[Katieeee]

If you guys can't discuss these things respectfully, then I'm going to close this.
Thanks.

[Gram Negative]

Originally Posted by xHolyValorx

Hm. And it's also a coincidence that the world is covered mostly with water, right?

What does that have to do with anything?

[Blackwing]

There is no source to back up Noahs life. Other then the bible.!

[silentmuffin]

Originally Posted by EDGE

There is no source to back up Noahs life. Other then the bible.!

Should there be? There wasn't photography...or newpapers, or legal documents, or anything like that. There's the Bible and the traditional story passed through generations, and that's more proof of existence than most other individuals who lived during that time have. I certainly can't prove Noah existed, but what kind of proof are you looking for? The things we have today for proof just didn't even exist during that time. It's not impossible by any means that there wouldn't be much trace of him today.

[Gram Negative]

Originally Posted by silentmuffin

Should there be? There wasn't photography...or newpapers, or legal documents, or anything like that. There's the Bible and the traditional story passed through generations, and that's more proof of existence than most other individuals who lived during that time have. I certainly can't prove Noah existed, but what kind of proof are you looking for? The things we have today for proof just didn't even exist during that time. It's not impossible by any means that there wouldn't be much trace of him today.

Other sources that are not the Bible.