Religion and science agree
Debate Round Forfeited
RedAtheist912 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||2 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||132 times||Debate No:||94031|
Debate Rounds (3)
Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Interesting topic.
As the terms are not yet defined here they are:
Science - knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method.
Religion - the belief and worship of a God or Gods.
Let me start with rebuttals:
At first, Pro suggested most of the problems of religion are rooted in short-sightedness. But this is not relevant to the topic.
Next, Pro mentions if there was a God, we should expect His insights to be not readily visible to our mundane minds. Well, here's the thing. "If" there was a God. Science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't form conclusions on "ifs". The case presented here is a double conjecture - Is there a God? If yes, then would His insights be not readily visible to our minds? If yes, then Pro's proposal would deserve a consideration by the scientific community. But if this, a hypothesis within a hypothesis, is Pro's provided argument, he should brush up on what is the standard of evidence science requires.
Pro continues: "I have long been under the impression that if something is understood prima facie, then that thing is either incorrect, or incomplete. Those who hold God to an impossible standard will find that what they have wanted all along is an inconceivable idea." Pardon my lack of comprehension skills, but what do you mean? From my unsure understanding of it, are you saying those who want to observe evidence for God (hold God to an impossible standard) would end up empty handed? (inconceivable idea) If so, well, that's just evading the need to provide evidence. If not, please elaborate.
Pro ends with suggesting as we have limitations on our knowledge we shouldn't only rely on science to explain to explain the natural world. I disagree. Let's raise a question, say, the origin of species diversity. There are countless creation myths from various cultures and religions, but why is science the one globally accepted and taught in schools? Because it is the evidence that science has and needs that makes it the one most credible. And just because you have limitaitons of knowledge doesn't mean you should be open to anything other than evidence for your first step in discerning the truth.
Now, the reason religion is incompatible with science. Religion starts with a conclusion - the holy text, then searches for evidence to support it. Science starts with the evidence and then comes up with the conclusion. That is why there is so large a difference between the amount of evidence provided by the two. Religion is not willing to change its views, science changes to new evidence and observations, and admits its wrong sometimes. Galileo was convicted of heresy for suggesting a heliocentric model. Science might as well be the blasphemy of religion. That is only the start of the mountains of difference between the two.
Upon rereading my argument, I realized that I was vague in what I meant by religious problems being rooted in short-sightedness. Rather I meant, the discrepancies between religion and science are most often caused by a short-sightedness.
In other words, as science goes about the lengthy and arduous task of establishing Truth, religion and science will gradually merge as to what that is. It may help to clarify if I state that I do not adhere to traditional scripture as absolute Truth (i.e. Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.).
I disagree that science does not rely on "Ifs" when drawing its conclusions. In fact, the entirety of science is inference-based, which essentially means "If what we have observed here generalizes to all of space and all of time, then it is law." Furthermore, the purpose of my conjecture is to provide a conditional proof. In formal logic, this is where we assume the first proposition, then determine what may necessarily follow from this origination point. Its purpose is to demonstrate how something that seems irrational, may, once further examined, prove plausible. Many people argue against God, given certain sets of seemingly contradictory information. Examples of this include "The Problem of Evil," and apparent paradoxes in Godly behavior and our understanding of it. My argument wishes to establish that "If" there were a God, what types of behaviors and human realities would we expect to see? I submit that it is reasonable to assume an Omniscient God's perspective would vary greatly from our own. Let me offer an example.
As a parent, am I continually confronted with the challenge of explaining complex information in simplistic ways so that my young son can understand. This often times results in my using terms that are less than accurate, in exchange for making them comprehensible. Occasionally, he will catch me in one of these "contradictions," and protest that I was wrong. I then have to explain how his limited experience made it difficult for me to explain completely.
People accuse God of being malevolent, or nonsensical. This, I believe, is due to a Supreme Being possessing sovereign information that cannot be conveyed to us in our present state. For example, Christianity has often postulated the imprudence of extra-marital sex. Society has generally reached the consensus that this "moral law" was man made rather than divine. Mostly, this is because we have found ways of managing it. But couldn't there be long-term ramifications unseen to the mortal mind? That is, time may demonstrate the folly in this thinking as society increasingly engages in risky sexual behavior, resulting in unwanted pregnancies, STD's, and a general degradation of what sex is. Many times I set boundaries for my son to mitigate risk, not because it will draw immediate consequences. The simple imperception of negative results does not necessarily mean that they are not forthcoming.
I will try to elaborate on one of my other confusing statements that Con has pointed out. "I have long been under the impression that if something is understood prima facie [first glance], then that thing is either incorrect, or incomplete. Those who hold God to an impossible standard will find that what they have wanted all along is an inconceivable idea." The impossible standard to which I refer is, "If it doesn't make sense, then it is 'nonsensical.'" Sanskrit appears 'nonsensical' to me, but only because I don't comprehend its structure. God cannot be held to such a dichotomous posit, and those who expect Him to always make sense are setting themselves up.
Con suggests that "because you have limitaitons of knowledge doesn't mean you should be open to anything other than evidence for your first step in discerning the truth." I do not wish to eradicate evidence nor an appeal to it in our pursuit of Truth. However, many scientists are stymied by a consideration of anything other than data. The very obvious problem data presents is its ludicrously small sample size. The universe is estimated to be 13 billion years old. We've had science for a couple of centuries. The universe is approximately 165 billion light years across. Scientists are fiddling around with their instruments on less than a speck of dust. Anytime such accusations are brought up against science, I hear "But look at all the good science has done," or "Well that's all we have to work with, so we're using what we have." Fine. Great. Dandy. But don't lie to yourselves about the limitations of science. It's grotesque in scope by its own standards. You'd think more scientists would openly admit that no matter how far we've come, we have infinitely further to go. I have seen many of the best scientists openly admit this.
I do agree with you about the disparate approaches to Truth science and religion employ. However, most view religion as Truth revealed. It's comparable to me telling my son "Crossing the street is dangerous." He does not understand this, nor has he witnessed this. He has no data to back it up. Nevertheless, it is true. In time, as he grows and learns, he will come to the same conclusion, but until then, he is merely relying upon my assertion. Science is this way. Eventually, science will come to the same conclusions that religion has long attested. The one caveat I offer in anticipation of objection is I do not believe that anything put forth by a religious organization is God's mind and therefore Truth. In fact, many men use religion to further their own political agendas and have nothing to do with God.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.