The Pope admits that part of the Bible is a fairy tale. Watch

JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ind...706.html%3Famp
0
reply
NotNotBatman
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
This is not something that's new; the Catholic church has the opinion that the bible is symbolic and the events didn't occur.
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
This is a bad development. The less influence religion, particularly catholocism and islam, has in science, the better.
Religion has no influence over science. Science is science and is a record of what has currently been observed. If someone observes something that contradicts previous learning, science moves forward. Anyone is welcome to disprove anything that has been established through science.

But religion would have us "believe" that the world is 4000 years old because someone wrote a story about it once. No questions asked. That isn't science.
2
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
This is a bad development. The less influence religion, particularly catholocism and islam, has in science, the better.
Nah. Religions have been trying to cling to the coat-tails of science for a hundred years and more. They have to as science is the only likely way to truth, so they seek any coincidence between their superstitions and science in order to claim it as justification.

It would be worrying if it were scientists trying to tie religion and science together rather than the opposite.
3
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Mathemagicien)

At the most basic level: many scientists are religious, and this will influence the conclusions they reach. Many of the people who run scientific journals are religious, and this will influence which articles they publish.

Then there is funding. Scientists need grants. Religious organisations can fund studies by scientists who consistently reach 'satisfactory' conclusions. They can put significant pressure on organisations to cut the funding of scientists who often conduct research they don't like, perhaps including in the form of religious scientists writing an open letter to the organisation or something.
This may well be true. But one can question science and one can change scientific thinking it you can prove your theory. By contrast, religion is set in stone. You either believe it you don't. If you question it, you are a non-believer and don't have the faith.

There is nothing wrong with being religious and a scientist as long as your scientific principles are generally pessimistic in outlook and are open to question, rigour and cross examination.

Aspects of science may well be funded with a motive, politically or otherwise but they tend not to become part of scientific understanding simply because it is pretty clear there is a vested interest and bias that can be easily disproved. You can only buy truth and fact for a short period of time, as Trump is discovering.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
What else is he gonna say? It is pretty much self evident to anyone who is not wholly brainwashed, that the Bible is nonsense, and at best "symbolic".
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
This is a bad development. The less influence religion, particularly catholocism and islam, has in science, the better.
Indeed couldn't agree more. I couldn't imagine the catholic church contributing anything positive to science. I mean, could you imagine a catholic priest coming up with something like the Big Bang theory? Because I can't ...
0
reply
hezzlington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
:rolleyes:

Due to the largely objective nature of science, it is hard for large religions not to contribute something to it. When a religion is 1/6th of the global population, I'd expect some reasonable scientists from them.

That isn't to say the religion itself is a positive force.
How does the religion itself contribute to science?

A muslim contributing to science isn't Islam contributing to science. It's a scientist contributing to science who happens to be a muslim.
0
reply
hezzlington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
A religion/ideology/whatever might be argued to motivate the scientists themselves, or create an environment where the sciences prospered.

Not that it happens with any religion, but it might have been so in the past.
Hundreds of years ago, sure.

But your choice of religion back then would of been predominantly determined by your geography.
0
reply
Mystery.
Badges: 21
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
Pepe much
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by ByEeek)
Religion has no influence over science. Science is science and is a record of what has currently been observed. If someone observes something that contradicts previous learning, science moves forward. Anyone is welcome to disprove anything that has been established through science.

But religion would have us "believe" that the world is 4000 years old because someone wrote a story about it once. No questions asked. That isn't science.
  1. Science came about through a desire of people to understand how God works.
  2. Religion does not tell you how old you should believe the world is. The 4004BC idea was an estimate which is only used for tracking when Biblical events happened.
  3. Much of what is recorded in religious texts is metaphoric, written for simpler people who couldn't understand what we take for granted.
0
reply
Mtree
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
Fairy tale?!
0
reply
angelike1
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
Naiive. Religion has influence over science, as does politics.

At the most basic level: many scientists are religious, and this will influence the conclusions they reach. Many of the people who run scientific journals are religious, and this will influence which articles they publish.

Then there is funding. Scientists need grants. Religious organisations can fund studies by scientists who consistently reach 'satisfactory' conclusions. They can put significant pressure on organisations to cut the funding of scientists who often conduct research they don't like, perhaps including in the form of religious scientists writing an open letter to the organisation or something.

With religion comes controversy. Religion affects the very things people see as "right" or "wrong". Many topics remain too taboo for scientists to explore, and would lose their careers if they tried.

For example, race and IQ. Not religiously motivated in this case, but it is obvious that there will be other subjects taboo thanks too religion also. Such examples would be the fear of GMOs and stem cell research, of humans "playing God", that has resulted in many EU countries substantially restricting GM research, and restrictions on gene research (for fears that it could lead to designer babies) and stem cell research (because 'muh embryos are sacred'.

Some nobel laureate in biology gave an interview where he said something along the lines of "all our policies in Africa are based on the assumption that their intelligence is the same as ours, while that is not the case in reality.” His lecture was cancelled, and forced to resigned from his position at his lab.



Okay.
Religion can influence people and hence influence science.

What he meant was science would never turn to religion to look for truth. E.g. if we're trying to discover the origin of man we wouldn't include the Creation story in our list of scientific evidence.
0
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Good bloke)
Nah. Religions have been trying to cling to the coat-tails of science for a hundred years and more. They have to as science is the only likely way to truth, so they seek any coincidence between their superstitions and science in order to claim it as justification.

It would be worrying if it were scientists trying to tie religion and science together rather than the opposite.
Yeah it reeks of desperation to try and stay relevant if you ask me.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Tootles)
  1. Much of what is recorded in religious texts is metaphoric, written for simpler people who couldn't understand what we take for granted.
It is just a shame that so many people in the world don't get that and believe it verbatim. And because their vote is worth so much, politicians are falling over each other to give that right to believe crap ground in law. We therefore have some bizarre instances where scientific facts established through questioning, experimentation, observation and scrutiny are being offered as a choice of theory to students in school. So creationism and evolution are two ideas about how we were created. You have a choice.

It is a bit like saying, "You can choose whether to believe if the sun goes around the earth or visa versa." Half of Americans think the former BTW.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (476)
66.39%
No (241)
33.61%

Watched Threads

View All