Minnesota GOP lawmaker Mary Franson dismissed climate change concerns in a state committee hearing, saying her faith in Jesus Christ—not scientists—guides her view
Religion and science is in conflict because they’re antithetical to each other.
Science demands that all you “believe in”, all your statements, derivations, conclusions, explanations, be based on fact - and if the supporting information changes, so do your statements/derivations/conclusions/explanations. Essentially, you write the book based on observations, and if the observed things change, so does the book.
Religion is the other way around. All your observations, all your conclusions, etc., must bow to the book first. Anything that doesn’t fit the book is the work of the devil, thus bad.
There’s no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it’s officially approved ofc), it is the ultimate source of truth, unchanging and ever-existing.
Of course you then get denominations that consider the Bible not the word of God but the human-transcribed (thus faulty) version of the word, therefore are much more flexible on how things are interpreted, but that still doesn’t allow science to co-exist with religion when the latter can be utilised to invalidate a fact-based system.
What I meant by that is that inconsistencies between reality and the book are not accepted.
If the Bible says the sky is green, then it’s green, and if it’s blue, well, that’s the work of the devil and shouldn’t be. Regardless what scientific explanation there is.
See my other reply - by “inconsistencies” I meant between reality and scripture. Scripture always comes first in religion, even if reality is proving it wrong.
See e.g. religious types claiming being gay is a sin and unnatural, because the Bible says so, meanwhile nature proves them wrong daily with homosexuality being actively observed in hundreds of species…
This kind inconsistency is what I was referring to.
Religion and science is in conflict because they’re antithetical to each other.
Science demands that all you “believe in”, all your statements, derivations, conclusions, explanations, be based on fact - and if the supporting information changes, so do your statements/derivations/conclusions/explanations. Essentially, you write the book based on observations, and if the observed things change, so does the book.
Religion is the other way around. All your observations, all your conclusions, etc., must bow to the book first. Anything that doesn’t fit the book is the work of the devil, thus bad.
There’s no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it’s officially approved ofc), it is the ultimate source of truth, unchanging and ever-existing.
Of course you then get denominations that consider the Bible not the word of God but the human-transcribed (thus faulty) version of the word, therefore are much more flexible on how things are interpreted, but that still doesn’t allow science to co-exist with religion when the latter can be utilised to invalidate a fact-based system.
“There’s no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it’s officially approved ofc)”
So who the fuck is the official source confirming that the NIV is as consistent as the NEB, KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other versions of the Bible?
Cause the different versions alone bring about a shit ton of inconsistencies.
What I meant by that is that inconsistencies between reality and the book are not accepted.
If the Bible says the sky is green, then it’s green, and if it’s blue, well, that’s the work of the devil and shouldn’t be. Regardless what scientific explanation there is.
WHY DIDN’T GOD GIVE US MICROWAVE OVENS? THEY MUST NOT WORK AFTER ALL.
You are insane if you think religion is consistent.
See my other reply - by “inconsistencies” I meant between reality and scripture. Scripture always comes first in religion, even if reality is proving it wrong.
See e.g. religious types claiming being gay is a sin and unnatural, because the Bible says so, meanwhile nature proves them wrong daily with homosexuality being actively observed in hundreds of species…
This kind inconsistency is what I was referring to.