My comment was for Drakkith.
So your problem is with the people and not religion but you blame religion anyway?. Fundamentalism is relatively new movement in Christianity. It's not Christianity was originally practiced. It explains also why a catholic came up with a big bang. Catholic thinking and southern evangelical fundamentalism thinking is completely different. Fundamentalism is a lack of interpreting the bible. Most people have interpenetration of the bible rather then just reading it word for word.
So if there was no religion people would of not find some other way to justify doing bad things? What about philosophy?
But who's to say that philosophy wouldn't just replace religion in the religion vs science problem Are you saying philosophy conflicts science also?. Or how about politics. My point is that blaming religion for the science vs religion problem is misplaced because religion is not unique in causing the problem.
Religion conflicts with science in that they both make claims about the world but use totally different methods to justify those claims.There is a religion vs science problem caused by politics and fundamentalism.But how does this make let's say Christianity conflict with science? A lot of religious people accept science and don't see it as a opposing view point. The debate does not reflect religion but more or less reflects subsets of a whole religion.
No it isn't. If a priest says that god told him vaccines don't prevent disease he is provably wrong whether you think he is the mouthpiece of god or not.Well science isn't math in the sense that it tries to prove thing. If you belief in G-d then it's very logical and rational to believe the "claims" made by religion.
Of course you can. Any pursuit of science observes, forms a hypothesis, experiments, tentatively concludes and logical reasoning is used throughout all of that. The fact that no science "proves" is a testament, not a flaw. Scientific theories are made from a preponderance of evidence.Because science disproves not proves like math you can't really compare religion and science in there methods of deriving the truth of the world.
There is a religion vs science problem caused by politics and fundamentalism.But how does this make let's say Christianity conflict with science? A lot of religious people accept science and don't see it as a opposing view point. The debate does not reflect religion but more or less reflects subsets of a whole religion.
So under your logic if someone used science to oppose gay marriage then all of science has a conflict with gay marriage. Even more general. If someone uses an construct to opposite another construct then said construct fundamentally opposes the other construct.
Well science isn't math in the sense that it tries to prove thing. If you believe in G-d then it's very logical and rational to believe the "claims" made by religion. Because science disproves not proves like math you can't really compare religion and science in there methods of deriving the truth of the world.
I never said it was a flaw. I said because one seeks absolute truth while the other doesn't you can't compare them. It's like comparing mathematics and science. Would you say those conflict each other. That's not religion. It says nothing in Christianity that you must believe the priest when he makes those claims. Actually in Judaism it even warns of those who use G-d's name to promote there own ideas.
Religion doesn't explain how it explains the ultimate why which is something that no one knows science alone can answer. Those that say religion explains how to everything are putting words in G-d's mouth most of the time.
Religion doesn't. People putting words into G-d's mouth do. Religion interpretation which is in line with the bible takes care of how the Earth was formed and shows that our scientific understanding of how the Earth and universe was formed does not contradict that. Look in the bible does it explain how G-d created life? In order to understand the story of Genesis for what it is you need more then a literal reading of the bible. Only fundamentalists subscribe to the literal reading.
No it's the orthodox approach. Maimonides a famous Jewish theologian said that if science conflicts the Torah then either science is wrong or we are misreading the Torah. Because we can virtually rule out science being wrong this is where religion interpretation comes in. Something that fundamentalism lacks. If people still have a problem with science then either they don't understand science or they just want to put words in G-d's mouth to feel better about themselves. It's not the religion.