(Original post by Robby2312)
How havent I described religion faithfully?You're wrong here.They're complete opposites.Both religion and science try to offer answers to the question why are we here.The contradiction is that religion thinks it knows the answer and asks you to take it on faith.Science asks for evidence for claims about the universe.And thats where they contradict because religion offers no evidence.It just asks you to accept it.They're not just different methods of doing the same thing,they oppose each other like light and dark.Its hard to explain.If you accept religions claims you're being incompatible with scientific thinking because you're just accepting it without evidence.If you were being scientific you'd demand evidence.So they're two completely opposite ways of answering questions.As different as the truth is from lies.
Evoloution and the belief that God guided it cant coexist.Natural selection holds that random mutations caused some species to to have advantages over others.These mutations allowed some species to survive as they were better adapted to their environments.The problem with guided evoloution is that if its guided then mutations cannot be random.If its guided then its not random at all.This completely contradicts a biologists view of evoloution. If evoloution is guided then it has a purpose to it but modern science holds that evoloution has no purpose.No animal can be said to be more evolved than another.If you believe in guided evoloution then you have to believe that the purpose was to create humans which does contradict a scientists view of evoloution.
When a religous idea is wrong its not really rejected in the same way as a scientific idea.Religous leaders just come out with statements saying that it wasnt ever meant to be taken literally that it was always metaphorical.But they only do this when the truth can no longer be denied any longer.They cling onto their beleifs as long as possible.For example when copernicus showed that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.It was centuries before the catholic church admitted they were wrong and only because they were faced with incontavertible evidence.Thats the contradiction.Religion stubbornly clings to its beliefs in the face of opposing evidence but science rejects those beliefs which contradict the evidence.They're directly opposing ways of doing the same thing and answering the same questions.They can't both be right.
The problem with this post is that it ignores the history of science and the close relationship it has with Christianity. This book covers some of it;
Few topics are as open to misunderstanding as the relationship between faith and reason. The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus. For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway. Popes haven’t tried to ban zero, human dissection or lightening rods, let alone excommunicate Halley’s Comet. No one, I am pleased to say, was ever burnt at the stake for scientific ideas. Yet, all these stories are still regularly trotted out as examples of clerical intransigence in the face of scientific progress.
Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.
That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.
But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.
Given that the Church has not been an enemy to science, it is less surprising to find that the era which was most dominated by Christian faith, the Middle Ages, was a time of innovation and progress. Inventions like the mechanical clock, glasses, printing and accountancy all burst onto the scene in the late medieval period. In the field of physics, scholars have now found medieval theories about accelerated motion, the rotation of the earth and inertia embedded in the works of Copernicus and Galileo. Even the so-called “dark ages” from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome. Agricultural productivity soared with the use of heavy ploughs, horse collars, crop rotation and watermills, leading to a rapid increase in population.
Posted from TSR Mobile