Why Is There A Conflict Between Science and Christianity?

[Usagi]

There is a conflict between some Christians and some parts of science. Not an inherent conflict between Christianity and science. There’s a good argument that Christianity was one of the key (name removed by moderator)uts that gave rise to the scientific mindset.

 

[LateCatholic]

Evolution contradicts much of the foundation of Christianity.

When I say foundation of Christianity, I mean the fundamental and still pronounced dogma where there existed one human being who committed the first sin, and Jesus died and was resurrected for that sin. It is fundamental to Christianity that this human, know as Adam ,was the first human to commit a (known) sin, that no other humans prior to Adam committed a sin, and all humans alive today descended from that human. This directly conflicts with Evolution.

It is only recently that the Holy See has expressed you can be a Catholic AND believe in evolution, as long as you agree that there was still one human being that we all descended from that committed the first sin. If you can’t wrap your head around the mental gymnastics required to believe this (there are entire threads on this board talking about M-Eve and Y-Adam), you cannot believe in Evolution. Hence, the conflict.

There are many, many other scientific conflicts with the Catholic Church. Many. But I wouldn’t say they are fundamental. These conflicts range from the accepted (earth is not the center of the Universe) to the highly improbable (virgin birth) to the subjective (any miracle) to the confirmed (Holy Shroud a forgery, no Great Flood) to the hotly debated (being gay is a choice).

The point, again, is to show that there IS a conflict between Christianity and science. This is beyond dispute.

 

[vz71]

beyond dispute.

Words of someone that has very little to back their argument.

“Don’t argue with me, my position is beyond dispute”.

 

[LateCatholic]

Words of someone that has very little to back their argument.

All I am saying is that it is blatantly obvious that there is a conflict between science and Christianity. How can you state otherwise? Example:

Christianity: Jesus was born of a virgin.
Science: Virgin births are impossible.

Hence the conflict. There very definition of miracle implies a conflict with science.
There ARE religions or potential religions where there is no conflict with science. For example, science has not refuted the existence of souls. Belief in a soul and the afterlife does not (at least today) necessarily conflict with science. But things like the virgin birth, the earth being 6000 yrs old, the Great Flood, turning water into wine, and so forth, absolutely DO conflict with science.
That is what I mean by “beyond dispute”. How can anyone claim otherwise?

For example, if you want to claim virgin births are possible, we can certainly have that discussion. And who knows, you could be right. But TODAY, there IS a conflict between Christianity and science.

 

[vz71]

All I am saying is that it is blatantly obvious that there is a conflict between science and Christianity. How can you state otherwise?

Because science is a study of God’s creation.

 

[LateCatholic]

Because science is a study of God’s creation.

That’s not the definition of science. Science is the process of using theory and evidence and observation to validate models and make predictions. Remember, this thread is asking about the conflict between science and Christianity. Such a conflict is present. Consider:

1. Do you agree Christianity states that Jesus was born of a virgin? (yes)
2. Do you agree that science states virgin births are impossible? (yes)

Hence there is a conflict. As I said above, some Christian concepts are not in conflict with science, but many (including the fundamental notion of Original Sin) are so.

 

[po18guy]

Re-pondering this , there never was a conflict, but at least two crucial factors have converged within the past 100 years or so:

1. Bible alone Christianity has lead to the private interpretation of scripture and the discarding of Saint Paul’s traditions (among the other 12). From this have come the “young earth” creationists, who are adament that the Lord made the universe in six 24 hour days. Anti-intellectual it is.
2. Atheists - increasingly militant - have entered the field of science. Certainly, a fraction of them seek to find that missing link and disprove the God of Israel. The mythical missing link being still MIA, they direct their efforts at disproving essentially everything the Church teaches. This has created a well-funded arena of pseudo-science.

In two or three generations, we have gone from the greatest scientists (Edwin Hubbell, Albert Einstein, Jesuit Fr. Georges Lemaître) working to find truth - to those who seek only to prove their agnostic/atheist agenda.

Before the flames light up, this does not apply generally - but generally the noisiest members of society have the most access to cameras, internet and written interviews.

And for that reason, the artifice that is the science-religion “conflict” is maintained. Like a hot-air balloon, it is constantly puffed up.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Atheists - increasingly militant - have entered the field of science. Certainly, a fraction of them seek to find that missing link and disprove the God of Israel. The mythical missing link being still MIA, they direct their efforts at disproving essentially everything the Church teaches. This has created a well-funded arena of pseudo-science.

Not only that, but they would like nothing more than to find ‘more evolved’ extraterrestrial life that will tell this world there is no God. So far, the only thing proven is that the Earth is the best of all possible worlds. But they keep trying.

 

[LateCatholic]

fairly strong scientific evidence of the Flood

There is no evidence whatsoever that a flood killed every living thing on earth except for 2 of each, and that all biological fauna repopulated approximately 4000 years ago from one central global point.

You may be thinking of the (primarily debunked) Black Sea deluge theory that some proposed as the genesis of the many ancient flood myths. But even if true, that would prove Noah’s Ark story false as it would explain where the myths came from without validating the story…

 

[LateCatholic]

there never was a conflict, but at least two crucial factors have converged within the past 100 years

This thinking bothers me. Why would you try to hide the fact that science and Christianity have been, and continue to be, at conflict for centuries? To me, it is so obvious you are misleading yourself and others by even suggesting otherwise.

the artifice that is the science-religion “conflict” is maintained

How would one go about removing"this “artifice”? Would Christians be willing to admit the virgin birth was a myth? That all of Genesis was a myth? That all of Jesus’ miracles were myths? That evolution is valid?
People have tried. Thomas Jefferson, for example. He was thus called “The Great Atheist”. There is an inherent conflict between science and Christianity. To claim otherwise is being disingenuous.
The word “miracle” alone, as ingrained in Christian culture as it has become, proves the point.

 

[edwest211]

How do you explain the role of evolution in drug discovery? Drug discovery is trial and error.

 

[edwest211]

What is your specific issue with Genesis?

 

[LateCatholic]

How do you explain the role of evolution in drug discovery? Drug discovery is trial and error.

I’m not sure what this is trying to prove. The point made is that evolution is a fundamental principle in biology, and hence is a foundation to modern medicine. For example, a doctor asks you if you have any family history of a problem. Or you get a flu shot every year, instead of just once. These are just simple examples.
In terms of drug development, testing the validity of drugs on animals is direct application of evolution. If humans and animals did not evolve from a common ancestor, then it would be useless to have drug trials.

 

[vz71]

Science is the process of using theory and evidence and observation to validate models and make predictions.

All of which exist within the context of God’s creation.

 

[edwest211]

Nothing you wrote is accurate. It is just speculation. Evolution has no practical application.

 

[vz71]

There is no evidence whatsoever that a flood killed every living thing on earth except for 2 of each, and that all biological fauna repopulated approximately 4000 years ago from one central global point.

I do not recall this being a dogma to begin with.

Perhaps you are imagining a conflict with something that only has a resemblance to Christianity.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I don’t have any respect for people That claim evolution is false yet still go to a doctor.

Are you aware that medicine as a science and discipline predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years.

 

[sallybutler]

And apples fell out of trees before Newton postulated the Theory of Gravity. Doesn’t mean gravity didn’t cause broken bones before then that required medical science (such as it was).

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Okay.

What does that have to do with science and religion being in conflict?

Or with the idea that somebody may reject a particular theory, but still be a smart and capable practitioner in a science-related field?

 

[po18guy]

Excuse me? Methinks you would truly benefit from exposure to increased diversity of thought. Ad hominem is not a tool of rhetorical dialog. It is insults and marginalizing. A bad way to initiate conversation.

Certainly you are familiar with “the Enlightenment”? Have a look. I believe that is a milepost in this fabricated “conflict.”

“misleading”? AYKM? It’s an opinion! I am opining for goodness grief!

If my thinking bothers you, then your reaction bothers me.

Checkmate.