Why are believers anti-science?

D

Dinosaur

Rational Skeptic
Valued Senior Member
What is the problem that religious people have with science?

The religious believers with whom I am familiar seem to be anti-science. The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.
 
Because mostly, the way I see it, they see modern science as irrelevent to their religion and probably immediate life. Their religions, those of the Abrahamic God, have doctrines that speak nothing of modern science, of course, but the science of the times. Which there really wasn't much then. And to me also, to live a fulfilled life, I do not have to know modern science. I thought it was almost everything in life before I turned a Christian. But I gaurantee you if God showed Himself now, He would not deny proven science as observed by us. It is based on the truth, on what we observe, and what God observes, in part or whole, and there is no denying it. When you study what I've created, wrote, tread, and said, the path will eventually lead to me if you want to find me. Same with God, you take science far enough, and you'll see, it only leads to Him. You are studying what He has created, where He has been, where He has treaded when you study science. It is the study of what has been created (objects) and what it does, it's actions (properties). Every object created has a property, kind of like computer programming. All the way down to the atom. Take an atom, it is substance. That is one element of two. And it's properties, another element. Which states what happens when acted upon by a given stimulus. When you take it down far enough, you go all the way down to where you can imagine, quarks maybe. But all the way down, no matter how far, there is always going to be an object which has properties. And if we can get all the way down to the smallest particle/unit, then we can find the source code to the universe. And why haven't we found it yet? I think it's not meant to be or else we would be Gods. To go down to the smallest element to where it only has one property (one specific action when acted upon by one specific particle), if you know what I mean. Just like the table of elements is arranged according to the objects' physical properties and it's values, or that which states what will happen when acted upon by certain other elements. We can guess how certain atoms react to each other, and certain protons. But it is the tempatation of details and to try to know all. You keep dwelling far enough and if you're smart, you'll soon discover there's no way through, it's infinite. Just like solving pi. By realizing early on that you're just wasting your precious time trying to solve an infinite problem and supposedly the other student is farther along and encased in the details of getting the number down smaller and smaller, you're farther ahead by being farther behind. Those that are behind aren't necessarily the slowest, they're possibly the smartest by thinking before they jump in or thinking ahead. Life is not about the details of how the universe works. It's just a timewaster or an aversion to the really important matters, helping your fellow brothers and sisters on this earth. It's an illusion to test you. It is real as an evil teacher might make to divert you on a test but it is not what's important. Let's suppose the test is to separate the good from the evil. The good pass. And by being evil, the teacher is doing good by separating those which can't pass the test. It's all good, as they say. Those that test us are helping us. That's why Christians should love those that give us pain or toil, they test us. And without test, we have no way to advance. Science is real but it is an aversion from what really is important, I say again. Those that study the minute, irrelevant and detailed are only farther ahead in being farther behind. They dwell in the details hoping to fulfill that little spot in the that looks for understanding or longing and when that spot is filled, they look for more and more and wonder and wonder and it's a never ending cycle. Stand back and look at yourselves. You are looking for something that is nothing. You will never believe a God unless He presents Himself right in your face, on your day of judgement, if you keep on searching for nothing. You will have to realize, you're not going to find God by finding Him, only by reason of deduction will you. Not God=yes, but facts+conscience=God, well, that's kinda messed up but maybe you get my point. Look into yourself and discover. That conscience inside that tells us right from wrong, look in to it and read a Holy book and judge for yourself, does this seem right according to what I feel? Don't nitpick the details of it all because it was written by and for humans and there will always be mistakes, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations. Anyhow, I'm just babbling on and getting off topic. It took a lot of convincing anyway for me to go Christian but alas, I am and will always be now for what I know.
 
Pardon, but when I really get into a subject, I hear no sentence structure, nor see it. I guess a couple paragraphs or three would make it more legible.
 
If you can't be bothered to write in structured manner, why the **** should I be bothered to read it. Edit the bloody thing.
 
Dinosaur said:
What is the problem that religious people have with science?

The religious believers with whom I am familiar seem to be anti-science. The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.
Click to expand...

Because science proves organized religion for what it is... A bag of shite.
 
Because science suggests real challenges to the traditionally understood role of God.
 
Simple answer: Because everything new that science discovers, there's always questions about how it pertains to God and this and that. What's your average believer in a 2000 year old religion going to say? Obviously they're probably threatened by all the questions, and you can't blame them. Most religions are hard enough to understand in their entirety as they are, let alone with them having to be backed by modern science and modern scientific minds asking how the newest discoveries pertain to certain passages in their Holy book. Can't you see, take a step back and look at what all science has discovered and what it will possibly uncover. Can't you see it's like a never ending box of details when opened? And you put the burden of explaining all this and how it pertains to their older religion on them. And obviously they're overwhelmed and of course, any so called holy books I know don't explain modern science. It's pretty much entrapment, if you had to give it a legal term.
 
Lerxst said:
Not all believers are anti-science.
Click to expand...

No but they dont have a clue what science is all about. It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god. They simply dont use ther logics that's all.

[A] Hello im Xian and i hate science because science is the axis of evil
Hello in Xian and i love science but i dont understand them but it's cool anyway.
 
Mythbuster said:
No but they dont have a clue what science is all about. It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god. They simply dont use ther logics that's all.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Selected papers of Kenneth R. Miller, Biology professor at Brown University and Christian. Also author of Finding Darwin's God, one of the best defenses of evolution ever written for the layperson:

Meyer, T. H., Ménétret, J. F. , Breitling, R. , Miller, K. R., Akey, C. W., and T. A. Rapaport (1999) The bacterial Sec Y/E translocation complex forms channel-like structures similar to those of the eukaryotic Sec61p complex. Journal of Molecular Biology 285: 1789-1800.

Hanein, D., Matlack, K. E. S., Jungnickel, B., Plath, K., Kalies, K., Miller, K. R., Rapoport, T. A., and C. W. Akey (1996) Oligomeric Rings of the Sec61p Complex Induced by Ligands Required for Protein Translocation. Cell 87, 721-732.

Wiest, P. M., S. S. Kunz, W. D. Bowen, and K. R. Miller (1994) Activation of proteinkinase C by phorbol esters disrupts the tegument of Schistosoma mansoni. Parasitology 109: 461-468.

Bassi, R., A. Magaldli, G. Tognon, G. M. Giacometti, and K. R. Miller (1989) Two-dimensional crystals of the Photosystem II reaction center complex from higher plants. Eur. J. Cell Biology 50: 84-93.

Hinshaw, J. E., and K. R. Miller (1989) Localization of Light-Harvesting Complex II to the Occluded Surfaces of Photosynthetic Membranes. J. Cell Biology 109: 1725-1732

Lyon, M. K. & K. R. Miller (1985) Crystallization of a membrane protein in situ. J. Cell Biology. 100: 1139-1147.

Jacob, J. S., & K. R. Miller (1983) Two-dimensional crystals formed from photosynthetic reaction centers. J. Cell Biol. 97: 1266-1270.

Miller, K. R. (1979a) The Photosynthetic Membrane. Scientific American (October) pp. 102-113.

Miller, K. R. (1979c) The structure of a bacterial photosynthetic membrane. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76: 6415-6419.
 
A link to Miller's evolution page. It is a good resouce. Includes his criticisms of ID and Behe.

LINK

Oh wait, he is a believer so I guess that fucking invalidates it all.
 
The Christian God also is the God of Darwin's law. Think about it. How many successful people use morals to excel in their work or area of expertise? To be impatient and not want to read all of my paragraph before when I'm trying to help you understand us, is to reject a whole other side of humanity, the religious side. When you're impatient, hateful, spiteful, etc, you can expect Darwin's law to take care of you because obviously you can't expect to survive and thrive in a world where no one likes to be hated or untrusted. My God is the God of everything. It's only to the unbelievers that the discoverers of the laws such as Darwin's are held in such high esteem when believers know who the real one behind the scenes is.

It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god.
Click to expand...

Suppose we speak of numbers as in a metaphorical sense. If you have the numbers 3,2,8, etc, where do they come from? Did they just pop into existence through an unknown function which expelled them as a calculation or sum? Or were they born from a smaller number. You can take any number and it will be birthed from 1. In a linear sequence as a timeline is in creation, everything goes back to 1. And what is the creator/birther of 1? 0. You may argue 0 is not a number, same as God, because 0 is nothing. Of course, why do we have 0? It is a non-number, so to speak, to tell us the other numbers exist and we can't have the other numbers without 0. All are birthed out of nothing, in a sense, or as we see as nothing. In actuality, it is something and the creator of all after it. That is just a simple way to prove God exists through math. The universe is ran by calculations. Math is the law of the universe. In every action in it, they can be equated to numerical calculation. Every object can be given a value, a number or numbers, I should say, that when acted upon, judges how and how much to react to the actor it is confronted with. Like how in programming, every object is given properties of what it can or can't do which can be ultimately boiled down to beautiful numbers. To see the universe through God's eyes would be great. Numbers here and there. All in perspective. Mumbo jumbo to human eyes but to His, just one big jig saw puzzle that conveniently fits together.
 
While there are many believers in religion who know a lot about science, they seem to be in the minority. At least most of the believers I have known seemed to have hardly any understanding of science and put technology down as having a net bad effect on our lives.

I wish some of them lived for a year or two in third world environments without cars, computers, indoor plumbing, and all the others benefits of science & technology. It might give them more respect for what science has done in the last 300 or so years.
 
usp8riot said:
To be impatient and not want to read all of my paragraph before when I'm trying to help you understand us, is to reject a whole other side of humanity, the religious side. .
Click to expand...
Don't talk crap. If you are going to be a rude, inconsiderate asshole, who can't take a moment or to to properly formulate their thoughts, I rather doubt those thoughts are of much particular value.

In fact, I just spent ten minutes wading through your prose, correcting the spelling, amending the grammar, and giving it some structure. I just came back to post it from Word and found the above waiting me. So, go fly a kite, sonny, and hang your philosophy off the end of it.
 
usp8riot said:
How many successful people use morals to excel in their work or area of expertise?
Click to expand...

how many successful organizations use exploitation and opportunism to excel in their industry or to corner a market? the economy of the western world arguably thrives on taking advantage of the disenfranchised and impoverished to further the enrichment of the few. as a matter of fact, human nature in and of itself is so prone to fierce competition and opportunistic stratification that Communism, a socio-economic structure that attempts to establish egalitarianism; is a complete and utter failure in practice. whats your point?
 
Don't take my words too seriously Ophiolite. I don't intend for it to be rude, but that's the internet for you. Sometimes words come off as too concrete and taken too harsh since there's no visual confirmation of emotions. I'm just trying to lightly state my point.
 
Charles Cure: You imply that communism does not work in practice because people mess up a good concept.

The horror that was the USSR was a logical consequence of applying communist principles.

From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs. It sounds noble if you read it quick and do not think.

The fundamental principle of communism is a promise to steal from the best and the brightest. Expect them to produce to the limits of their abilities, but do not pay them based on their accomplishments. That sounds a lot like slavery to me.

The other half of the principle is an invitation for those skilled at whining and begging to work the system for as much as they can get without contributing.

To make such a system work, you need a vast bureaucracy and the coercive force of a police state. Furthermore, you have to close your borders lest the best and the brightest go elsewhere.

Capitalism & the those malaigned as robber barons did more to raise the stndard of living of the average man than any labor union, church. or govenment program.
 
**Capitalism & the those malaigned as robber barons did more to raise the stndard of living of the average man than any labor union, church. or govenment program.**

Coming from the school of Objectivism, I do heartly agree with Dino on this one ;)

Godless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top