Debate:Science vs religion

Why do atheists maintain that science and religion are naturally opposed to each other? Nobody Up until the 19th century held this view... And there are countless amount of religious people who are good scientists... So... do you agree with this, do you disagree. Why or why not?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you're wrong about timing there. The Catholic Church had an oppositional view of science thanks to Galileo and the Inquisition. I think that reasonable atheists would not dispute that there are good scientists who are religious. The problem arises with Biblical literalism (or literal interpretations of other holy books) and certain fields of scientific research that can come into conflict what appears in those books under literal interpretation. See also NOMA and conflict thesis. Bongolian (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So what? There are religious flat earthers today! Why does that matter???--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Religious dogma also goes against scientific thinking. Dogma means no alternate interpretations allowed while science in concept encourages challenges. 05:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If a particular religion says nothing which contracts scientific evidence (or which can be shown to be false through scientific investigation) then there would be no reason for science to be in conflict with that particular religion. So it depends on the religion and what it's claiming. (Alos - this should be a debate page)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do ____ maintain that ____? Nobody Up until the 19th century held this view
 * Fill in the blanks, everyone. 94.1.178.44 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do people maintain that black people deserve equal rights? Nobody up until the 19th century held this view. Christopher (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do people maintain that germs cause diseases? Nobody up until the 19th century held this view. Onychoprion (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do people maintain that slavery is evil? Nobody in the bible held this view.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs


 * The point is whether scientist is good or bad DOES NOT depend on his/her religion! Every scientist WHO PRACTICED science up until the 19th century (even atheists)... held this view. Why are we fed a lie that you have to be an atheist to be a good scientists?Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual valid arguments that religion doesn't affect scientist's work other than appeals to tradition? Christopher (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally think that you can be both a scientist and religious, just not a fundamentalist. Christopher (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How about every scientific field being started by religious people?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) No control, you have no atheists to compare them to 2) Stuff that happened hundreds of years ago isn't really relevant to science and religion today. Christopher (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just want to make it very clear I'm playing devil's advocate, as long as you're not a fundamentalist/your religious text is silent on what you're researching there's no problem. Christopher (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly true that religious people started most fields of study as - historically - most people were religious. But that means that most erroneous schools of thought were started by religious people too. So - so what?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The point is... that religion and science are NOT in opposition... This is a pure myth... There are irrational religious people... and irrational atheists! A belief in a flat earth, ancient astronauts, 9/11 being organised by Jews, and reptoid humans has NOTHING TO DO with a belief in God or disbelief, for that matter!Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the religion, and how literally one follows it. Biblical literalists, for example, firmly believe the Earth is around 6,000 years old, that there was a worldwide flood around 4,000 years ago, that every species (or genus or family or whatever) popped into existence over the course of 3 days, that rainbows, earthquakes, and probably volcanoes are supernatural events caused by YHWH, that the Earth is flat, that the sun physically travels through the sky, etc. This is all fundamentally opposed to science, which uses models to make predictions, tests those predictions, and updates those models accordingly until it gets as close as possible to reality (4.5-ish billion-year-old Earth, flora and fauna which gradually evolved developed, several global extinction-events but no global flood, heliocentric solar system, that rainbows are a result of water having a different refractive index than air and has nothing to do with YHWH, etc. It's very possible for a religious person to be a good scientist. It just requires that that person either engage in doublethink, or be studying something tangentially-related to what their religious text says (number theory, engineering, what-have-you), or have a far different interpretation of their religion than fundamental literalists. Onychoprion (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Bible DOES NOT teach that the earth is flat... It DOES NOT teach a geocentric model. I presume the watch does not need the human intervention to keep ticking by a mechanism that is well understood... Would this prove that there was no designer? Of course NOT! Sadly, this logic does not translate when dealing with natural phenomena, e.g rainbows... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well people who believe the Earth is flat for religious reasons are wrong. And in that case there is a clear conflict, and it's got a religious base. It's the same with people who have religious reasons for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or there was a great flood or whatever.  It depends on the religious claim and the particular religion.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Damian, So I suppose those verses that talk about the four corners of the EarthIsa 11:12, Eze 7:2, Rev 7:1 foundations of the EarthJob 38:4, Job 38:6, Psa 104:5 and the devil taking Jesus up to a tall mountain to see every kingdom on EarthMat 4:8 just don't exist then? What about the one where YHWH stops the sun in the sky to give Joshua more time to kill people?Jos 10:13 That's a pretty geocentric thing to say! And no, (some) watches don't need human intervention to keep ticking, but you're treading on deistic grounds there, and YHWH is not a deistic god, on account of all the interventions He does (the flood, smiting armies, killing a couple because they lied about how much money they donated to the church, making wool not collect dew, that kinda thing). Onychoprion (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum to above: Even if the Bible doesn't teach geocentrism and flat-earth, those things are in there, and people who believe every word literally will have to believe both. I also like that you don't even disagree with the ~6,000-year age of the Earth in the Bible, in direct contrast to the ~4.5 billion-years that evidence points to. Again, my point was that a literalist interpretation of the Bible disagrees with so much, that for a devout Christian to be a good scientist, they either have to engage in doublethink, or be studying something tangentially-related to what their religious text says or interpret the Bible non-literally. Onychoprion (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kingdamian1, it is clear that you are a heathen because you are contradicting the Bible. The Earth is flat; there is no denying it. Even alleged-Biblical literalist Ken Ham had to cover up this fact in his Creation Museum. 😉 Bongolian (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You've said a few times in response to people talking about religious geocentrists that the Bible doesn't promote geocentrism, this is irrelevant as we're talking about all religions, maybe the Bible isn't geocentrist but what about the Qur'an? The Veda? Christopher (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Again... The BIBLE DOES NOT teach flat earthism or geocentrism... 4 corners are a poetic way of saying "the whole world"... Sun stopping in the sky... is CORRECT... because it is written from the observer's view (as a side note, I must say that the sun does move, not around the earth of course, but it does move). From the observer's view the sun would have stopped! Satan taking Jesus on a great mountain, to see all the kingdoms... HOW DOES THIS promote flat earthism... People went up big mountains... And at the time when this was written... Round earth was dominant... So everyone knew... They had a calculation, made by Eritosthanes, and Luke, being a physician NO DOUBT knew this. So it is sort of a lame argument.

As for the Psalms saying that the earth shall not be moved.... This argument is NO BETTER than arguing that this verse means "there will be no earthquakes"... It is a poetic way of saying that God is in charge, and he controls the earth. If there was a verse that said... "Lo, I beheld the entire sky and in the center stood the earth, with all the heavenly bodies going around it." Then this is a DESCRIPTION... And yes, this would imply static earth. Genesis 1. IS A DESCRIPTION.Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Damian, all of those are you particular interpretations of those passages. Interpretations which only came around after heliocentric theory became commonplace. Someone could (and did/do) just as easily say those verses are proof of flat-earth geocentrism. And once more, the Bible also indicates the Earth is 6,000 years old, ish, which would put a huge strain on any geologists, astrophysicists, biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, astronomers, oceanographers... You get the point, surely. Either the faithful in those professions put aside their beliefs while they work (doublethink), interpret the Bible differently and don't have those beliefs, or can't do research because they can't follow the evidence to its conclusion. Onychoprion (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it wonderful that some Bible verses are "poetic" and the others are literal? 21:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It DOES NOT MATTER how people interpret it... What matter is what is written... Some people justify anti-semitism using the Bible... Would that lead you to conclude that Bible is anti-semitic? THE BIBLE does not say anything either about the heliocentric or geocentric model. Yes. I Bible does teach creationsim. I am a creationist myself- it's-a me! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, what's written is that Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms on Earth from a mountain in Palestine, which would only be possible on a flat Earth. Even assuming that's just all of the kingdoms 1st-Century-BC Palestinians knew of at the time, that includes things on the west end of the Mediterranean, and as far east as western India, which is a swath of land I'm not sure is even visible from the International Space Station. So unless there's a 400+ km-tall mountain we've missed around the River Jordan, that alone requires a flat earth to be true. It's what's written in the Bible.


 * And I'm glad you agree that the Bible is creationist. In which case, that's the answer to your question. Literalist young-earth creationists make poor scientists because they can't follow the evidence to its conclusions, and instead have to try to force the evidence to fit into pre-made conclusions. That's poor science, hence poor scientists. It's possible for Christians to be good scientists, but they have to either put aside young-earth creationism, or work in one of the few fields that doesn't contradict their beliefs. Onychoprion (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "It does not matter how people interpret it... What matter is what is written..."
 * Guess we don't need the judicial branch of government then. Finally, that the damn Bible can be interpreted in many ways doesn't lend credence to your claims, which are also interpretations. 23:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bible, and every other religious book I am aware of, is liable to massive interpretation. You don't find "6,000 years old" there either but many religious people use the bible to justify that belief.
 * It unambiguously claims there was a global flood. So the bible is not short of stuff which implicitly or explicitly is in conflict with science. The fact that bible doesn't explicitly have a verse flatly stating "the Earth is flat" is irrelevant. Some religious believers believe it says that, and there is plenty of other stuff there which is almost equally as wacky.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)