Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
Sat Jun 22, 2019, 09:14 AM Jun 2019

Should EVIDENCE undermine FAITH?

Does it matter if there are scientific inaccuracies in holy texts? Does it matter if the Prophet Mohammed did not know about genetic mutation or that Jesus did not understand natural selection? In fact one might ask the question, if there is any empirical evidence, of the existence of Jesus, or Moses or the Prophet Mohammed? As archaeological and other evidence emerges from the fragments of the far past, answers are not quite as clear cut as Holy Scriptures would have us believe. Of course, biblical scholars have long known that the scriptures are vastly different from the original offerings, with some texts discarded completely, others mistranslated and many have been edited and revised several times.

Science, as with archaeology, has come along and burnt a huge hole through religious beliefs in how the universe was created, how mankind came into being and how conception occurs. Science offers an uncomfortable truth to some with faith. After all, science tries to impose objectivity onto nature, by looking at the way the universe is and then testing these assumptions to come up with a model as to the nature of reality. This has to be objective, which is of course the big difference between fact based and mythology based belief.

Looking at the holy books of all faiths we see a collection of legends, fables, allegories, parables, and mythology and myth makers. However is this really a problem? Have these narratives not developed out of necessity? Biblical historians would claim that these stories were necessary at the time they developed, became tradition and then were passed down through the generations. An example of this could be the Exodus. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest this was an actual historical event, however it does not make the allegory any less important. After all it tells us the narrative of a people under constant foreign occupation and always being the underdog within the region they inhabit. The story of the Exodus gives this people a reason to believe that despite being the underdog they can be emancipated / rescued from their situation by a liberating God and that they can have their own land. A message and affirmation of self –identity for a repressed community.

People believe in Adam and Eve as fact, however we know that evolution is a scientific fact and not some conspiracy dreamt up by scientists to do the poor religious folks down. People believe in Noah’s Ark as fact, however we know that Noah’s Ark would not be terribly feasible based on the cubits given in the bible. The levels of methane gas produced by the dung of the animals within that confined space would have gassed them all to death! But does that reality matter? Should archaeological based evidence and scientific theory be the measure of truth when it comes to the matter of faith? Is it wrong to impose ascetic perceptions on holy text? After all, does it matter if holy texts are true or untrue? Does it matter if faith is based on fact or mythology? Is it that for faith, belief and fundamental truths within a faith construct, that the metaphor and the allegory develops a shared identify is more important that the fact based evidence offered by science? It seems so for many after all.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should EVIDENCE undermine FAITH? (Original Post) Soph0571 Jun 2019 OP
Religious beliefs are not rational, logical, or supported by fact. MineralMan Jun 2019 #1
"Faith" encompasses many things. Not simply believing in the history of sacred texts, but... TreasonousBastard Jun 2019 #2
No. Evidence should REPLACE faith. MineralMan Jun 2019 #3
Faith is one of the most shallow human experiences. LastDemocratInSC Jun 2019 #4
Evidence defeated faith Alpeduez21 Jun 2019 #5
Evidence DOES undermine Faith... uriel1972 Jun 2019 #6
Oh hey! Iggo Jun 2019 #9
it's all good :) uriel1972 Jun 2019 #10
faith shouldn't even be a thing... NeoGreen Jun 2019 #7
It doesn't matter if it should. It does. Iggo Jun 2019 #8

MineralMan

(147,334 posts)
1. Religious beliefs are not rational, logical, or supported by fact.
Sat Jun 22, 2019, 09:45 AM
Jun 2019

Still, many people cling to them desperately, for lack of anything better, they think. For most people, even for a very large majority, science is arcane and hard to understand. Most people have only a very limited understanding of any of the sciences. So, the same simple, incorrect explanations of phenomena are easier for them to accept in some ways.

Some understand that literal truth is hard to find in religious sources. Others believe things happened exactly as described in various scriptures. No amount of discussion will change their minds, because they do not understand the discussion.

That's why People Magazine outsells Scientific American by a huge percentage. Still, though, you can find both publications in the airport newsstands. Me? I pick up the latest Scientific American when I take a flight. It's more relevant to me than People Magazine.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
2. "Faith" encompasses many things. Not simply believing in the history of sacred texts, but...
Sat Jun 22, 2019, 10:57 AM
Jun 2019

antivaxers, many political beliefs, and many other things that we "know" are absolutely true, but cannot prove.

Even science itself. How many people who claim science is all actually understand the equations of string theory, or have actually worked with genetics? And exactly how do those nitrites in processed meat interfere with our body's natural defenses?

When buying "gluten free", who actually knows what gluten is or why it is bad? Or if it's really bad anyway? And just how many steps a day should you be walking?

It's easy to ridicule many beliefs, but not so easy when you have to put your own to the same standards.

Our lives depend on trust and belief in this complex modern world, just as it did in simpler times. And our myths and beliefs change with the times. Most Christians and Jews have come to the understanding that the history in the Bible is neither history nor science, but illustrates principles and ethics that underlie the religions. I even hear that for years Yale Divinity School has not required a belief in God in order to get that Divinity degree.



LastDemocratInSC

(3,822 posts)
4. Faith is one of the most shallow human experiences.
Sat Jun 22, 2019, 11:54 AM
Jun 2019

It's when a person selfishly defines reality with no regard to evidence.

Alpeduez21

(1,859 posts)
5. Evidence defeated faith
Sat Jun 22, 2019, 12:13 PM
Jun 2019

when I was six years old and no longer believed in Santa Claus.

How can anyone claim Jesus as God if he didn't know about natural selection. I thought God knows everything. That's what the faithful claim. So yeah, having the messiahs not know stuff pretty much distorts the status of Messiah.

NeoGreen

(4,033 posts)
7. faith shouldn't even be a thing...
Sat Jun 22, 2019, 09:27 PM
Jun 2019

...it is nothing more than a vacuous excuse people give themselves to believe things based on bad evidence, no evidence or even contravening evidence, just because it gives them comfort. Faith allows individuals to embrace an ultimately lazy and selfish approach to the world.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Should EVIDENCE undermine...