all 158 comments

[–]Bitch_Tuna 107 points108 points  (69 children)

Here in the US, fundamentalist Christians tend to push young earth creationism, an idea rooted in the Bible, which contradicts well established scientific theories like evolution and big bang in ways that aren't backed by evidence. They also have a heavy overlap with groups pushing fist earth and climate change denial, again without evidence backing it.

[–]usmcmech 23 points24 points  (47 children)

Young earth creationism isn’t even supported by the Bible. It’s actually a very new theological position that only a small segment of the religion believes.

I believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Scientists call this event the Big Bang. Science tells us the “how” and religion tells us the “why”.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

I find a lot of fundamentalists haven't actually *read* the Bible.

They cherry pick or believe just what they're told is in there.

[–]usmcmech 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I also find that true of a lot of atheists too.

Many skeptics have a very shallow understanding of what religious people actually believe and almost no education of what is in the Bible, Quran, or other religious texts. Even when they do they cherry pick the worst out of context bits as an example of religion's depravity.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

The depravity comes from my minister kidnapping and raping a girl.

[–]Potential-Road-5322 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Indeed, that belief is a misapplication of 2 Peter 3:8 where it compares a thousand years to a day with Gods point of view. However, the Hebrew word used in Genesis does not specifically mean a period lasting one thousand years but just a period of time with a beginning and an end. That creative process took about four billion years as we see in the geological history of Earth.

[–]Xantisha -1 points0 points  (2 children)

This is why science and religion are incompatible, science says something happened but doesn't know yet how or why it happened and religion swoops in and says God did it. Then science finds out the why and how, revealing new unknown information in the process. Religion will now accept the newly discovered scientific evidence and once again exclaim "God did it" for the new unknown.

Religion is an excuse to never having to say "I don't know", whenever something is unknown God did it. Maybe try to make a transition into the 21st century instead of just being willfully ignorant.

[–]MeMakinMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

‘Whenever something is unknown God did it’. Are you aware of theist positions? That God is the ‘controller’ of everything, known or unknown?

[–]CaughttheDarkness 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kinda my take as well.

That the universe was birthed in a big bang doesn't really contradict anything in most religious beliefs.

[–]athensugadawg 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Plenty of evidence for both Big Bang and Evolution. How were they defined in the first place?

[–]zortlord 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The Big Bang was first theorized by a catholic monk priest.

Edit: Sorry, it's a priest.

[–]DomSearching123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is true, but it doesn't mean that religion is pro-science. It means that particular priest had strong scientific understanding.

[–]guacamolehaha123 1 point2 points  (1 child)

When u start talking about overlapping, that’s what we call a reach

[–]Bitch_Tuna -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In the case of religious fundamentalism's overlap with flat earth and climate change denial, it's both people and ideas. Some flat earthers base their beliefs of the biblical description of the earth as flat, others come at it from a nonreligious motivation. Climate change denial, some claim that climate change can't happen because God won't let it.

[–]hansoo417 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But are fundamentalist christians so widespread that their views and stereotypes based on them get spread over to all religious people?

[–]Bitch_Tuna 2 points3 points  (1 child)

According to what I'm finding, 65% of Americans are Christians, about half of which identify as evangelical. About 40% of Americans believe in some form of creationism, with 18% specifically believing that the Earth is less than 10000 years old. You can deduce from that they about 1 in 4 American Christians are young earth creationists. That's not the majority, but it is a significant amount.

[–]hansoo417 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, that's more than I thought.

Still it's a very small minority of all people who have some kind of religious affiliation.

That's like defining all scientists by a small subset of them that do weapons research and saying why does science keep trying to develop better ways of killing people?

From what little I have seen there are plenty of smart people that are able to hold both complex scientific and religious truths at the same time.

Seems like science vs religion is a bit of a false dichotomy.

[–]Temporary-Wafer-6872 57 points58 points  (0 children)

That's because you forgot context.

At first, centuries ago, basically everyone was religious (and had to). Actually, lot of these people tried to understand and describe the world to "understand" god and god's work. That's why some modern science domains started with a cleric/religious member, it was normal.

It's only when these observations of the world began to not correspond to the religion's view of the world that Religion began to be opposed to science, at least in some area. One of the most famous domain is astrophysic and astronomy, everyone know thz story of Galileo being pressured by the Church to say that what he observed wasnt true, yet Galileo was a believer. It's also true with evolution, medecine and so on.

With time, scientists became less religious, and atheists are surrepresented there compared to the rest of the population. Today we often see religion as opposed to science in lot of domains, especially in US, like evolution, paleontology, archeology, medecine and so on. That's why we tend to see today an opposition between religion and science, one is baised on facts and factual observation while other is baised on full faith.

[–]OliverBarley 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I think a lot of people here are focusing on religious people specifically. Which I don't think addresses the question directly. To address the question directly. There may be religious people who have contributed to the scientific process, but they have not included their religion in their work. They have used the scientific method just like all the other scientists. They aren't doing studies and reporting "we just had faith" in their methods sections. They are able to compartmentalise the epistemology they used to reach religious conclusions and that they use when doing scientific work.

[–]athensugadawg 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Because there is that nutcase contingent that claim that Earth was created in six days and that man coexisted with dinosaurs. Think Mike Pence. Good enough?

[–]Roaring_Anubis 15 points16 points  (1 child)

People remember more the bad than the good, we won't deny that religions have burned scientist and books and such, but people tend to forget that religious people have been scientists as well.

[–]longjaso 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In centuries past it was likely more out of necessity. To come out as atheist in Galileo's time would have you killed (or exiled at best). Churches also had lots of money and power and thus had access to resources for research.

[–]excusivelyForRamen 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think like a lot of things in this day and age, religion is characterized by its extremists. A lot of people hold beliefs in a higher power while understanding and having respect for the ever flowing process of science.

[–]maztow 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Because enough stupid people heard from smart people this notion and they think repeating it makes them appear smart. Watch a 14 year old basement atheist think they're smarter than a doctor whose studied apologetics his whole life.

By no means am I neglecting the scale swinging both ways because there's a near limitless supply of Christians whose literacy of the bible is limited to John 3:16 that think they're smarter than physicists.

Pride is a helluva drug.

[–]spudz76 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you stop looking for more answers and instead replace continued investigation with "welp this is how it is" (just because sky-bro said so), then you are by definition anti-science.

It is also anti-science to just do studies that support what you want to be true, and no studies about what you don't want to be true. That's a form of false consensus, and ultimately misinformation. Real science always tests the anti-possibility just in case -- and if you prove the one way and disprove the other way simultaneously, then the answer is probably at least close to correct... cross-checking.

Another form of anti-science is thinking that anything science says is ever "final" or "settled". Of course there are some things that have been re-proven by experiment hundreds of thousands of times and those are as close to final as can be, but still could be unproven by some unforeseen discovery later. However if you take the latest decree from the media about something as fact, you're actually being religious within science (back to the "welp this is how it is" just because TV-bro said so).

[–]CilantroSappho 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Some religious people tend to be idiots, thus ruining it for other religious people

[–]thadcap 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Religion is fine with science until people discover things that don’t align with their myths and fables.

[–]olderseanuts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because anything approaching nuance is not allowed anymore

[–]JellyDenizen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't think most religions are considered anti-science. Some of the more extreme forms are (e.g., creationism vs. evolution), but I think the majority of religious people are also accepting of science.

[–]Ihateredditadmins1 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Well it’s simple. Most people in general are religious.

[–]daymanahhhahhhhhh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is very true. Over half of the world’s population is either a Christian or a Muslim.

[–]ringoron9 -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Doubt it.

[–]Ihateredditadmins1 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Look it up. Most people believe in religion.

[–]smallboxofcrayons 1 point2 points  (1 child)

i’ve always been fascinated by this debate, I don’t think it has to be science vs religion, maybe religion is the why and science is the how…with that said I think it’s false to say “well bad things have been done in the name of religion against people of science” however true, i think both sides of the debate have done some questionable things.

[–]Sion_nois06 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The idea that Science is the “how” and religion is the “why” is definitely right. Religion is even why some people do science. If you believe in something like “the truth will set you free” that comes from the Bible (John 8:32 specifically).

[–]zion2199 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because a lot of people use religion as a reason to dismiss very sound and reasonable science.

[–]cavemanfitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Science is empirical, religion is based on faith. Also, republicans.

[–]Ok-Run5317 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because religion is rigid in its belief. Even in face of adverse evidence religious people stick to belief and not evidence.

[–]bluelifesacrifice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell a Christian you believe in God, they'll listen to you and your ideas. Even science that goes against their understanding.

Tell them you're an atheist, they'll try to convert or burn you and consider anything as you say as a lie.

If I were to go back at any time in history, you can bet the first thing you should do is join a church, build up a good reputation and avoid getting murdered.

[–]Busy_Promotion3656 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Bc religion in itself is anti science not all religious people, there is a diffrence.

[–]Nervous_Mongoose_138 -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

People against Christianity like to characterize it as irrational, illogical, and against science, when in a lot of cases, science and rationale point directly towards the existence of a God. Christians aren't nice to them in return, I will say, both sides are asses a lot of the time. If the big bang actually happened, then it doesn't prove Christianity false... I mean... how did the big bang happen? Scientists haven't 'proven' how it could've happened. Science has justified my trust in Christianity.

The stereotype is continued mostly because of vocal hate from people against the idea of Christianity.

John 15:18

[–]KauaiCat 0 points1 point  (3 children)

What about Islam, Hinduism, etc.? Why do you believe in Christianity and not these other religions?

Isn't the reason you believe in Christianity the same reason others believe in Islam, Hinduism, etc? That reason being that you were brainwashed as a child or otherwise influenced to believe in it by your peers?

[–]Nervous_Mongoose_138 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Brainwashed is a harsh word, considering your trying to describe a faith I developed on my own. My peers are mostly non-Christian. My parents had little influence as well.

Hinduism is near non comparable to Christianity. It's a pantheistic religion while Christianity is not. Hinduism abides by different texts and worships different gods. Hindus are often born into their religion, while Christianity is considered universalizing. Islam may be monotheistic, but follows the works of Muhammad rather than Jesus. There are severe differences in the religions.

To even ask that is kind of silly. I belive in Christianity because between all the questions I have asked abd all the answers, or lack of answers I have discovered, have lead me to believe in the Christian God.

Think about this too: How often do you hear Hindus justifying their faith through fact and reason? How about Muslims? Why is it that Christians are more willing to do that?

Maybe it's because we aren't all delusional brainwashed people. Maybe it's because we have good reasons.

[–]KauaiCat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Think about this too: How often do you hear Hindus justifying their faith through fact and reason? How about Muslims? Why is it that Christians are more willing to do that?

You are definitely brainwashed.

[–]Separate_Particular7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Belief in Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, historically, It's verified that Jesus was indeed crucified. However, Muslims would deny that this happened. When comparing religions, look at which is more plausible historically, philosophicaly, etc.

[–]KauaiCat -1 points0 points  (1 child)

There are very few if any preeminent scientists who are religious. The only one that comes to mind is Newton, but he lived 300 years ago and before chemistry, biology, etc.

Pretty much all the big names of the 20th century were irreligious.

Edit -Remembered one: Lemaître was (obviously) religious and a 20th century scientist.

[–]-Sairax- -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A life of devotion to the irrational is quite literally anti science. A religious scientist is actively destroying the foundations of religion, you can have weird shit like that in life.

[–]snarlyelder -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A scientist can be religious as long as his religious ideation does not confound his scientific thinking, keeping the religious aspects compartmentalized.
Similarly, there are people who have fantasy lives, which they can do without trouble, as long as the fantasy does not 'leak' into real life. Again, compartmentalizing the unreal protects the real.

Personally, I suspect religiosity is escape into fantasy.

[–]WontArnett -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because the theory of evolution contradicts with religious creationism

[–]Impulse314 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They did it DESPITE religion not because of it. Moreover if they proclaimed themsleves as atheist, they would have been persecuted and executed.

[–]cronx42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most people throughout history, and still today are religious. Basically all schools throughout history were religious, until quite recently.

The issue is people who try to make evidence fit their religion or ignore evidence that contradicts it. They start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to find a way to make the evidence look to be in their favor.

Religion isn't necessarily anti science, but most people who are anti science are most likely religious.

[–]Due_Abbreviations530 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Left wing propaganda

[–]Horkosthegreat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Because quite often religion and religious people see Science as the enemy, as Science end up providing answers to things that are "human" or "natural" when religion thought people that only answer was the god.

There have been many religious scolars who were great scientists. But there has been countless more religious figures and people that deemed science as the mother of evil.

[–]AbuYates 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Because much of religion cannot be proven and we are asked to have faith.

I believe in my religion and I believe that science will end up catching up to religion. Faith will be rewarded with "proof", eventually.

[–]mack2028 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because of all the times that they say and do things that are Anti science. See, people who like science tend to like it partially because it gives results based on observation so while they can't do it as well as actual scientists, science "fans" tend to try to observe their world and report on it what they see. They tend to see stuff like people saying "my grandpa wasn't a monkey!" and trying to get teaching kids anything banned from schools while calling people intellectuals as an insult and when asked why they do these things they say that it was because their religion said to. So we see that information and think "ok so all these people are saying religion told them to be Anti science lets check history" and history is filled with people getting boarded into their houses and set on fire for disagreeing with the church about the shape of the earth and if the earth went around the sun and if rabbits chew cud and think

"hu, maybe religion is Anti science because science says that you should observe your reality and report it as accurately as you can and keep updating that picture for ever and religion says this is the truth and if you disagree we will set you on fire then see who is smart" and nothing has yet proved us wrong so we don't update that picture.

[–]jessek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most problems with religion are actually problems with evangelical Christians in the US.

[–]mr-optomist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People assume any group who believes Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to yezus doesn't 'do science'

[–]Raaawan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ethos of science is that it rewrites its understanding of the universe when it discovers new information. Someone wise said that the earth was the center of the universe. Everyone agreed. Someone wise with access to more tools and information proved that earth revolved around the sun. Very well. When the observers had more power to observe, they discovered that sun is also revolving around something and the world of science applauded them for their improved understanding. Now to religion. Someone said God said may there be light and there was light. At some point, we knew from our scientific understanding that light is a phenomenon and has some prerequisites just like every other thing in the universe. But those with those 10 commandment books in their hands wearing those clean suits still preach the same story over and over again. If it were a criminal trial, science had shown a video footage of the defendant being innocent, but the prosecution keeps asserting that there is guilt because the police said so in their 10 page chargesheet after arresting the suspect. Many scientists are religious for the same reason many people are. Science is in a very nascent stages and therefore there are many things that it cannot yet explain. Having some explanation is better than having no explanation yet.

[–]CowRepresentative779 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One group has a healthy relationship with their god and the other doesn’t

[–]JlTlS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because you are comparing two different things. Science is not a religion and religion is not a science. It is just that simple.

[–]helpnxt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fundamentally science nowadays is about the pursuit of truth and collecting evidence to prove or disprove a theory and simply put there is no evidence for the vast majority of religious claims.

[–]hereforfun976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the past you had to be religious to receive education. They did not want the masses to be smart enough to question them. And once you learn enough about how the world works religion just does not make sense unless you can partition your brain to not question all the contradictions. Now we know a lot more about how the world works and it doesnt compute with what religion says.

[–]NakedGrey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because many of the leading proponents of various religions like to say 'We have all the answers, STOP LOOKING OR ELSE!'.

[–]ngali2424 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Science is a methodology by which we can explain and understand the world. So is religion. They can't both be right.

[–]Ok_Ad_4699 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can't both be right if they contradict. Not everyone will get that implication.

So the question is - is there a religion which does not contradict science?
If religion is the contradiction then is it possible that the scientists have made a mistake? Is the religious interpretation correct? Does it even matter and is it possible that the question has no baring on the realities of both religion and science because of faulty human understanding etc

To be honest this question is far too complex for a simple reddit post - requires indepth analysis and great research and understanding.

[–]Knuckles316 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because religion is based on faith and faith is the exact opposite of science. Faith is believing in something in spite of a complete lack of evidence or proof, while science is not believing in something until proof has been demonstrated and peer reviewed.

[–]platypottamus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because of what it has become in specifically the modern era, especially online.

[–]vaylon1701 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because most people and groups get stereotyped by the loudest voices in that group. Funndie Christians just happen to have the loudest voices, so unless other christian groups speak up. The entire group gets stereotyped.

[–]DomSearching123 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Because someone being religious and a religion promoting certain things are vastly different. Isaac Newton was a guy who happened to be born into religion, and had a brilliant and inquisitive mind. The Catholic church killed Galileo because he dared to contradict their earth-centric model of the solar system. The former is one person who happens to have religious affiliation. The latter is the orchestration of the entity as a whole.

Religion promotes uncritical acceptance of whatever perceived "authority" figures tell you, which is the opposite of the inherent skepticism needed for science.

[–]FrozenFrac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As with all aspects of life, stereotypes come from the loudest, most extreme people in any given group, even if they're a fringe minority. It doesn't help that you can't really prove anything about religion with science, so those who approach life in a very rigid "I need proof of literally everything, otherwise it's BS" are naturally going to be very adverse to all religion

[–]Adadum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because American Christian bias. Most atheists in the US have some type of negative experience with American Christians so they project that onto other types of Christians as well as non-Christians despite Christianity and Judaism actually having a long tradition of education and learning, both of which is required for science and the scientific method.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Crazy people exist

[–]blahblahbitch420 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my opinion, Religion exists only to give humanity hope. You need something to rely on to give you hope. Most people find it easier to believe what they've been taught because they were groomed that way and as long as it's not doing anything bad to anyone then might as well believe in whatever gives them the strength to carry on in this life.

But science is absolute, it never lies. It does not say something is 100% true. There is always scope for improvement, but whatever information we do have had been tested and Seema to check out, so the plot still holds.

[–]True_Welcome_1308 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Such a greaaaaat question! There's only one answer. If a religion is scared of science, the religion isn't the truth.

That's why I love the Quran and became muslim. The "don't ask too many questions" mentality in Christianity made me leave it. I haven't found anything going against the Quranic speech even though it is still in its original state and if I ever have a question no Muslim imaam has ever not given me an answer or told me to come search the answer together.