5 ms·

I think the difference is that religion focuses on what happened, and science focuses on how it happened. I know some do, but I think most Christian people don

by toflon 9y ago

I think the difference is that religion focuses on what happened, and science focuses on how it happened. I know some do, but I think most Christian people don't actually believe it took god 6 days or 144 hours to create everything. I think the accept that it's a metaphor, that doesn't try to explain it. While I don't believe in any religion, I still think these two things can coexists. For instance the originator of the Big Bang theory was both a scientist and priest.

hellrich 9y ago
Polls show over 40% in the US to believe in creationism http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-h... Also religion is not only concerned with what happened, yet often very active in prescribing what has to happen: abortion, divorce, homosexuality,...
humanrebar 9y ago
I believe the Genesis creation story. I also believe it's a metaphysical question. Given an all powerful force, of course the universe could have been created to look any way at all, including the current configuration, fossils, evolution, and all. The follow on questions are usually, "But how would God have done that and why?" Good questions, but not ultimately scientific ones. They are metaphysical and theological, respectively. EDIT: Do downvoters care to comment with their thoughts?
- tzs 9y ago
  Why do you believe that particular creation story instead of one of the hundreds of other creation stories [1] from around the world? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I know you don't mean it to be, but the way you've worded that question makes it somewhat rude and very unlikely to generate the response you're hoping for.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I have thicker skin than that, but not everyone does. Thanks!
    - tzs 9y ago
      Is that because I included the Wikipedia link, and Wikipedia calls them all myths?
      - tptacek 9y ago
        There's that, and there's the fact that people of mainstream faiths tend to resent their beliefs being compared to primitive animism, and there's the fact that those comparisons are also an Internet atheist activist trope. But more generally it's a little weird asking someone outright why they belong to a particular religion. It's not something you're meant to litigate. We rightly feel irritated when fundamentalist Christians proselytize to strangers; this is another instance of the same thing.
        tzs 9y ago
        > But more generally it's a little weird asking someone outright why they belong to a particular religion. Even in a thread whose whole point is a discussion of religious belief and why people are religious? > We rightly feel irritated when fundamentalist Christians proselytize to strangers; this is another instance of the same thing. When people proselytize for their religion they are implicitly if not explicitly telling you that your current beliefs in that area are wrong and that theirs are right. I agree that is irritating. I don't think that asking someone why they believe their religion is the same thing.
        tptacek 9y ago
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Why believe they're all false just because there are many? Any atheist creation story is just one more in the list. But, to narrow things down, the Genesis account is dislike most of those in that: 1. It's ex nihilo, so it doesn't leave loose ends out there like, "Yeah, but where did the giant turtle come from?" I'll point out that atheist philosophy has this problem at least with respect to matter and energy. 2. It's monotheistic, so complications about where the many gods come from, what rules they have to follow, and how they die are moot. 3. It doesn't make clearly-not-true claims about the nature of reality (great beasts, corpses of giants, etc.). I know people disagree on this point, but I think most people who reject the Genesis account haven't fully deliberated on this question. Now, I didn't start at genesis and work my way through the Bible to my current beliefs. I don't find that people generally convert to Abrahamic religions that way. But I do find that people mistakenly think there's a contradiction between science (evolution, astronomy) and the Genesis story, which is why I said something.
    - tzs 9y ago
      > Why believe they're all false just because there are many? Any atheist creation story is just one more in the list. I didn't say or imply that they are all false. You are reading more, I think, into my question than was there.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Didn't mean to single you out. Apologies. I was trying to point out (for the lurkers if not you) that atheism doesn't get a free pass just because there are all sorts of creation stories to consider. A materialist story is a story nonetheless.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > It's ex nihilo, No, it's not. > so it doesn't leave loose ends out there like, "Yeah, but where did the giant turtle come from?" How is “Yeah, but where did God come from?” not a loose ends almost exactly like that? > It's monotheistic, so complications about where the many gods come from, what rules they have to follow, and how they die are moot. It has a single creator (like many polytheistic creation myths), and multiple supernatural entities raising the same type of questions (even if you literally interpret the serpent as just a really smart snake with an unexplained defiant streak, by the end of Gen 3 you’ve got the cherub with the flaming sword.) That the supernatural entities besides the creator in the Judeo-Christian tradition are called something other than gods doesn't actually eliminate any of the issues they raise.
- sethev 9y ago
  To me, this is equivalent to saying there are no scientific questions.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. Validating the universal law of gravity is a scientific question, right?
    - sethev 9y ago
      In my view, yes. If there's an all powerful force with a mind then everything is a theological question, though. "Does God choose to present my senses with evidence that leads me to believe gravity works the same way as I remember it working yesterday?" EDIT: most Christians I've heard talk about this say that God put natural laws into place but of course that is itself a theological point.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        If you mean "you need to have a materialist metaphysical frame for science to work" then I agree. Theists often adopt that frame while pursuing scientific inquiry just like a physicist might presume point masses for the purposes of some reasoning. But they still ask and answer scientific questions. In other words, it's extremely rewarding and useful to know how things work assuming no miracles. Just because you believe in miracles doesn't mean all the science is pointless.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I believe the Genesis creation story. Which one? The one (Gen 2:4-) where the order of creation is man, then plants, then animals or the one (Gen 1:1-2:3) where it is plants, then animals then man?
  - NotAChristian 9y ago
    >>> I believe the Genesis creation story. >Which one? The one (Gen 2:4-) where the order of creation is man, then plants, then animals or the one (Gen 1:1-2:3) where it is plants, then animals then man? Both. They both are true, and they both are talking about two different events. In Gen 2:4-, it is talking about men (men here = Adam and Eve) inside the Garden of Eden, while the Earth is still bare. In Gen 1:1-2:3, it is talking about men (men here = Homo-sapians) outside of the Garden, on Earth. So basically, God created men (Adam and Eve) inside the Garden of Eden at a time when the Earth was still bare. God then created the plants and the animals inside the Garden of Eden too (remember that outside, the Earth is still bare at this point). Then, outside of the Garden, on a bare Earth, God created the plants. Then the animals. Then Homo-sapians, who will roam the Earth and evolve to eventually "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Adam and Eve, who are inside the Garden of Eden, are NOT the same as the Homo-sapians who roamed the Earth, though by the time Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, the Homo-sapians will have already evolved to look like humans too. In other word, in the Garden, Adam and Eve were created as perfect humans beings already. Meanwhile, outside the Garden, primates had go through an evolution process over millions of years to reach the point where they look like humans.

by toflon 9y ago

hellrich 9y ago

Polls show over 40% in the US to believe in creationism http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-h... Also religion is not only concerned with what happened, yet often very active in prescribing what has to happen: abortion, divorce, homosexuality,...

humanrebar 9y ago

I believe the Genesis creation story. I also believe it's a metaphysical question. Given an all powerful force, of course the universe could have been created to look any way at all, including the current configuration, fossils, evolution, and all. The follow on questions are usually, "But how would God have done that and why?" Good questions, but not ultimately scientific ones. They are metaphysical and theological, respectively. EDIT: Do downvoters care to comment with their thoughts?

tzs 9y ago
Why do you believe that particular creation story instead of one of the hundreds of other creation stories [1] from around the world? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths
- tptacek 9y ago
  I know you don't mean it to be, but the way you've worded that question makes it somewhat rude and very unlikely to generate the response you're hoping for.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I have thicker skin than that, but not everyone does. Thanks!
  - tzs 9y ago
    Is that because I included the Wikipedia link, and Wikipedia calls them all myths?
    - tptacek 9y ago
      There's that, and there's the fact that people of mainstream faiths tend to resent their beliefs being compared to primitive animism, and there's the fact that those comparisons are also an Internet atheist activist trope. But more generally it's a little weird asking someone outright why they belong to a particular religion. It's not something you're meant to litigate. We rightly feel irritated when fundamentalist Christians proselytize to strangers; this is another instance of the same thing.
      - tzs 9y ago
        > But more generally it's a little weird asking someone outright why they belong to a particular religion. Even in a thread whose whole point is a discussion of religious belief and why people are religious? > We rightly feel irritated when fundamentalist Christians proselytize to strangers; this is another instance of the same thing. When people proselytize for their religion they are implicitly if not explicitly telling you that your current beliefs in that area are wrong and that theirs are right. I agree that is irritating. I don't think that asking someone why they believe their religion is the same thing.
        tptacek 9y ago
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Why believe they're all false just because there are many? Any atheist creation story is just one more in the list. But, to narrow things down, the Genesis account is dislike most of those in that: 1. It's ex nihilo, so it doesn't leave loose ends out there like, "Yeah, but where did the giant turtle come from?" I'll point out that atheist philosophy has this problem at least with respect to matter and energy. 2. It's monotheistic, so complications about where the many gods come from, what rules they have to follow, and how they die are moot. 3. It doesn't make clearly-not-true claims about the nature of reality (great beasts, corpses of giants, etc.). I know people disagree on this point, but I think most people who reject the Genesis account haven't fully deliberated on this question. Now, I didn't start at genesis and work my way through the Bible to my current beliefs. I don't find that people generally convert to Abrahamic religions that way. But I do find that people mistakenly think there's a contradiction between science (evolution, astronomy) and the Genesis story, which is why I said something.
  - tzs 9y ago
    > Why believe they're all false just because there are many? Any atheist creation story is just one more in the list. I didn't say or imply that they are all false. You are reading more, I think, into my question than was there.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Didn't mean to single you out. Apologies. I was trying to point out (for the lurkers if not you) that atheism doesn't get a free pass just because there are all sorts of creation stories to consider. A materialist story is a story nonetheless.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It's ex nihilo, No, it's not. > so it doesn't leave loose ends out there like, "Yeah, but where did the giant turtle come from?" How is “Yeah, but where did God come from?” not a loose ends almost exactly like that? > It's monotheistic, so complications about where the many gods come from, what rules they have to follow, and how they die are moot. It has a single creator (like many polytheistic creation myths), and multiple supernatural entities raising the same type of questions (even if you literally interpret the serpent as just a really smart snake with an unexplained defiant streak, by the end of Gen 3 you’ve got the cherub with the flaming sword.) That the supernatural entities besides the creator in the Judeo-Christian tradition are called something other than gods doesn't actually eliminate any of the issues they raise.
sethev 9y ago
To me, this is equivalent to saying there are no scientific questions.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. Validating the universal law of gravity is a scientific question, right?
  - sethev 9y ago
    In my view, yes. If there's an all powerful force with a mind then everything is a theological question, though. "Does God choose to present my senses with evidence that leads me to believe gravity works the same way as I remember it working yesterday?" EDIT: most Christians I've heard talk about this say that God put natural laws into place but of course that is itself a theological point.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      If you mean "you need to have a materialist metaphysical frame for science to work" then I agree. Theists often adopt that frame while pursuing scientific inquiry just like a physicist might presume point masses for the purposes of some reasoning. But they still ask and answer scientific questions. In other words, it's extremely rewarding and useful to know how things work assuming no miracles. Just because you believe in miracles doesn't mean all the science is pointless.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I believe the Genesis creation story. Which one? The one (Gen 2:4-) where the order of creation is man, then plants, then animals or the one (Gen 1:1-2:3) where it is plants, then animals then man?
- NotAChristian 9y ago
  >>> I believe the Genesis creation story. >Which one? The one (Gen 2:4-) where the order of creation is man, then plants, then animals or the one (Gen 1:1-2:3) where it is plants, then animals then man? Both. They both are true, and they both are talking about two different events. In Gen 2:4-, it is talking about men (men here = Adam and Eve) inside the Garden of Eden, while the Earth is still bare. In Gen 1:1-2:3, it is talking about men (men here = Homo-sapians) outside of the Garden, on Earth. So basically, God created men (Adam and Eve) inside the Garden of Eden at a time when the Earth was still bare. God then created the plants and the animals inside the Garden of Eden too (remember that outside, the Earth is still bare at this point). Then, outside of the Garden, on a bare Earth, God created the plants. Then the animals. Then Homo-sapians, who will roam the Earth and evolve to eventually "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Adam and Eve, who are inside the Garden of Eden, are NOT the same as the Homo-sapians who roamed the Earth, though by the time Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, the Homo-sapians will have already evolved to look like humans too. In other word, in the Garden, Adam and Eve were created as perfect humans beings already. Meanwhile, outside the Garden, primates had go through an evolution process over millions of years to reach the point where they look like humans.