Jump to content
Science Forums

Can Science And Religion Coexist Peacefully?


kowalskil

Recommended Posts

Science often uses a dual standard. If one is presenting something new to the science community, there are certain protocol that need to be followed for something to be accepted as valid science. But on the other hand, the critic of the new does not have to follow this standard, but can use unproven subjectivity to discredit anything outside the box. It can say pseudo-science and that is all the proof required of a science critic. That is not even scientific yet is acceptable since it protects the box.

 

It is much harder to introduce things to science, than to criticize these same things. As a humorous example, say you tried to get a 3 year old child to eat broccoli for the first time. The mother or the creator of the new food might say it is good and has done her research to show that it is also good for you. The 3 year old critic only has to say, yucky, and he wins. He may even get mad for you trying to poison him. But there is no burden of proof based on him doing an experiments (try it) to see if yucky is valid.

 

When it comes to religion, you need to look at the data in new ways and not just say yucky. Relative to the evolution of humans, religion played an important role. We may refer to religion as subjective, but what that also means is religion has a connection to the unconscious and the unconscious to natural instinct. Before humans could become detached from pre-human instinct, they needed a bridge that was part conscious and part unconscious, as way to become conscious.

 

If you go to an historical area of any country, we don't just bulldoze it to build a 2011 strip mall. We preserve it since it tells up about the past and where we came from. Religion is the same way, it that it preserves the past so we can learn from the past. In some places, people will even re-enact historical events.

 

The only religion that science seems to accept is called atheism. Science defines atheism in a way that makes it appear rational and scientific and therefore different from religion. However, reason and science are not needed for one to become an atheist. There are many irrational atheists, yet the definition ignores this part of the data, and does not include this in its full definition. Atheism is a pseudo-religion, like creationism is pseudo-science.

 

When I was much younger, I became an atheist. The main reason was so I could do those socially acceptable fun things that religion would not allow. My motivation was irrational but also experimental. I did not find the need to prove anything to myself, other than say if religion says X, Y much be true. Rational Atheism did not step in and differentiate behavior apart from its ideal definition, but was happy with the recruits. I could be irrational, but as long I was dumping on religion, that was acceptable atheism.

 

Maybe a good way to begin the bridge between science and religion is to look at the irrational atheist. They represent an bridge between religion and science. Science may define the dogma, but the irrational atheist will use faith that this has to be true. Many will also subjectively extrapolate the science to serve their own needs. They can't criticize anything science, or this will be blaspheme. If you look closer ,the mind dynamics are not much different than a religion, which is why atheist need to bulldoze the past, to prevent historical perspective. It all has to be yucky like an all or nothing switch, which is irrational, but acceptable to science. That is dual standard in action.

 

 

l

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It's impossible for science and religion to co-exist because they're naturally opposed to each other. All niceties aside, if religion could kill science, it would have long ago, and conversely if science could kill religion, it would.

 

Religion left to its own becomes increasingly self-propagating, so then anything that casts doubt on it is considered an enemy. Which also means that anything scientific that even hinted of questioning doctrine, would immediately be burned at the stake.

 

Personally I'd prefer to keep science, although a little humility in those disciplines wouldn't hurt.

 

Indoctrination is dangerous stuff. Of course the sad fact is that those who are religiously indoctrinated don't know that they are.

 

Science often tries to unindoctrinate by showing facts and evidence. Sometimes it works but very often the indoctrination requires you fight fire with fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the disagreement between the various answers is mostly due to ambiguity in interpreting the question:

Can science and religion coexist peacefully?
All those who reply in the negative are taking the meaning of "coexist peacefully" as if it were "are the same thing", or almost. Replies in the positive consider it to mean that people needn't bash each other to bits for adhering to one or the other kind of doctrine.

 

If I ask: "Can cats and dogs coexist peacefully?" many people would answer in the affirmative and yes, there are many examples of them getting along fine together, despite that in other cases they come into conflict with each other as a result of their very different natures. They tend to misunderstand each other and in some cases one stimulates the hunting instincts of the other; often the dog tends to chase the cat, which often will defend itself before, or instead of, fleeing. Replies to the negative in this thread have been based on stating that one doesn't meet the requirements of being the other and at least one of the first argued as if every single dog provokes cats and was along the lines of saying dogs are a failed hypothesis and so they don't exist.

 

If some people need to be a dog let them jolly well be a dog, as long as they don't go chasing after cats and don't give cats a reason for attacking dogs. Gee, some people are even both cat and dog, so the two things definitely can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Science And Religion Coexist Peacefully? No, not if it is one of the Abrahamic religions at least, they are called by their God to convert everyone, even if they don't want to be converted. This insistence on conversion has resulted in horrible warfare and death through the ages, to be honest at least some of the religious wars were just excuses to take stuff from those subhumans who refuse to believe in our God!

 

Science does not wage war to convert anyone to GR nor does any one in science worship Einstein or any other great scientist, if some bright boys comes up with proof Einstein was wrong then he becomes just another scientist who's theories turned out to be BS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Science And Religion Coexist Peacefully? No, not if it is one of the Abrahamic religions at least, they are called by their God to convert everyone, even if they don't want to be converted. This insistence on conversion has resulted in horrible warfare and death through the ages, to be honest at least some of the religious wars were just excuses to take stuff from those subhumans who refuse to believe in our God!

 

Science does not wage war to convert anyone to GR nor does any one in science worship Einstein or any other great scientist, if some bright boys comes up with proof Einstein was wrong then he becomes just another scientist who's theories turned out to be BS...

 

I'm not sure that's the best argument.

 

Scientists developed the atomic bomb to ensure that the third reich didn't take over the world. I don't believe there is any scientific reason to avoid destroying Hitler's regime. Christians who fought in the crusades saw no reason to avoid destroying Islam.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Science And Religion Coexist Peacefully? No, not if it is one of the Abrahamic religions at least, they are called by their God to convert everyone, even if they don't want to be converted.
  • This isn't a conflict between religion and science, it is an issue beteen each religion and other people.
  • None of the three Abrahamic religions calls its followers to forcefully convert those who do not want to.

 

This insistence on conversion has resulted in horrible warfare and death through the ages, to be honest at least some of the religious wars were just excuses to take stuff from those subhumans who refuse to believe in our God!
Exactly. Religion was an excuse for taking stuff from those of another land or ethnic group, or for being the boss and political authority. Without kings or politicians it, that's not what religion leads to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This isn't a conflict between religion and science, it is an issue beteen each religion and other people.
  • None of the three Abrahamic religions calls its followers to forcefully convert those who do not want to.

 

I can give you that, but religious leaders often have decided to convert people at the point of a sword, I don't think you can separate out the human factor from the interpretation of religious texts.

 

Exactly. Religion was an excuse for taking stuff from those of another land or ethnic group, or for being the boss and political authority. Without kings or politicians it, that's not what religion leads to.

 

 

I think you should add Popes, Mullahs, Priests, Preachers and all the others who use religion as a way to power and or control. I admit it would be difficult to get even the most devout of religious to spontaneously decide to go and convert those others heathens by gun point these days but religion does lead to the Popes, mullahs, Priests, and Preachers inciting people to some amazing antisocial violent behavior over the centuries, the old testament is full of descriptions of God ordering muder and even genocide.... BTW show me a society without kings or politicians....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the three Abrahamic religions calls its followers to forcefully convert those who do not want to.

 

Quran 9.29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

 

In Muhammad's later years he ordered that unbelievers either profess the truth of Allah (as he had preached it) or be put to death... Many were put to death under his leadership in and around Mecca and Medina.

 

There is no doubt but that Islam and the Quran call for forced conversion. In its most flattering interpretation, unbelievers are either to be slaves or converts.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, Moon, Popes were politicians too, in the days of the Holy Roman Empire and then in the Papal State.

 

Red Herring:

BTW show me a society without kings or politicians....
Sure! The Soviet Union and its allies, Maoist China, Cambodia and Viet Nam, Cuba under Castro... :doh:

 

I don't need to show you a society without kings or politicians because it isn't the point. Politicians in France currently forbid the display of any religious symbol in public schools.

 

Quran 9.29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Yes it sure looks like it, worded this way, but we'll keep on "fight"ing over our opinions on this topic. What a horrible war we are waging.

 

If you read the whole thing you find it's a lot more complicated than that; have you ever read the original archaic Arabic text, with a good semantic grounding? No wonder there are contrasting interpretations and even seem to be contradictions in the text. Up till that verse n° 9 is talking about idolaters, which usually doesn't include Jews and Christians. Two verses after that, it accuses them of things akin to idolatry; I guess Muhammed couldn't quite make up his mind... In the Christian case it is the Islamic misunderstanding of Trinity being against the dogma of one only god, so it's enough for a Christian to say Jesus ain't a god. I don't know on which grounds they accuse Jews of calling Ezra a son of God.

 

Also, the Jizya is a tax... yeah he was a bit of a politician himself. A bit like the Pope and the Pharaoh and so many other religious leaders. Especially in past times.

 

In any case, even if there were no dispute that Islam inequivocably calls for conversion at the point of sword and every single Muslim were intent on it, it doesn't support the case about religion in general. Judaism doesn't even exactly encourage conversion (like some other religions, it is somewhat reserved for its own people). Christ was the one who mostly pressed for proselytization, but he also said turn the other cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it sure looks like it, worded this way, but we'll keep on "fight"ing over our opinions on this topic. What a horrible war we are waging.

 

No doubt horrible :agree:

 

The Quran elsewhere says to slay unbelievers (or infidels, pagans, idolaters, or however else it is translated in whichever particular text) unless they "repent and establish worship and pay the Jizya" (9.5). People blame fundamentalists for carrying out these heinous deeds, and they are quite right to do so, but I also blame the books instructing them.

 

I think it also has to be taken in an historical context. Muhammad was literally in a fight for his life with Arab pagans. He, and his followers, were often at war with them. A lot of the Quran therefore talks about unbelievers as if they are enemies that needed to be either subjugated or converted.

 

Muhammad was not in a position to conquer neighboring tribes using the usual political motivations (for example, as the Roman empire did before Christianity got involved) because Muhammad lived not long after Arabian institutions of kingdoms and chiefdoms were overthrown. There was a strong anti-royal sentiment among Arabian tribes such that they would fight to the death rather than being subjugated by a terrestrial political authority.

 

The same sentiment apparently did not extend to a supernatural authority. Religion was therefore a tool used to conquer towns and build an empire. In that light, it is not surprising that the Quran speaks of forced conversions... nor that it talks about tax collection.

 

If you read the whole thing you find it's a lot more complicated than that; have you ever read the original archaic Arabic text

 

No, I probably know half a dozen Arabic words. I've never attempted to read any Islamic text in Arabic. I can't imagine, however, that it would be significantly different from its English translation.

 

I realize there are ways to step away from the meaning of these quotes and for muslims to decry forced conversion. Specifically, Muslims can find other verses from their holy books which imply the opposite.

 

Nonetheless, there is a reason that modern Islamic fundamentalists force captives to convert before considering their release. Looking for examples, I find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Islam_2

 

Historically, forced conversions are rather commonplace. In the Hadith, for example:

 

One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah.

 

 

Up till that verse n° 9 is talking about idolaters, which usually doesn't include Jews and Christians.

 

Yeah, I think it gets translated "idolater", "pagan", "unbeliever", "polytheist", "infidel", and whatever else. But, really, whoever the verse is talking about—it is forced conversion and it's not good. So many people say that Bin Laden and fundamentalists in general are misinterpreting the holy books... that any correct interpretation of Islam makes it a religion of peace. I don't see it that way. I think the fundamentalist's interpretation, as dangerous and morally objectionable as it is, is valid.

 

Also, the Jizya is a tax

 

:agree:

 

In any case, even if there were no dispute that Islam inequivocably calls for conversion at the point of sword and every single Muslim were intent on it, it doesn't support the case about religion in general.

 

There is no doubt about that.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the birth of Islam was a political matter. No doubt the Arabic tribes were battling each other; so much that they had acquired great practice at it and as soon as they were no longer at war with each other they began the well known expansion.

 

I read that it is written in an archaic Arabic and a style such that the modern reader finds it difficult even if a native speaker of Arabic. Translation certainly doesn't help, it never does. For instance, I forgot to mention, a few verses before the one you quoted:

 

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

What do you make of it? You slay them and take them captives? And then see whether they repent? Beats me... or maybe some linguistic issue is afoot.

 

No doubt horrible :agree:

Seems you agree surprisingly much, that you and I are fighting a horrible war over our opinions! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

What do you make of it?

 

Yeah, I see what you're saying. A wiki article is useful for its different translations and commentary on that particular verse.

 

I think, even in English, it can make sense. A group of pagans can be slain and taken captive if some of them are slain and others taken captive. I would guess that is the original intent of the verse. I think it is essentially saying, 'fight them in every way you can'.

 

Also, the verse was written in regards to a specific town which had rejected Muhammad's rule. It is probably saying that Muslims should slay, take captive, ambush, etc. the town's inhabitants until the town itself submits, after which point—all is forgiven.

 

Seems you agree surprisingly much, that you and I are fighting a horrible war over our opinions! :D

 

:hihi:

 

I only mean that this is a rather unimportant and inflammatory tangent that has nothing to do with whether or not religion and science are compatible. I think they can be, especially in the sense that the same person can follow both.

 

I also meant "horrible" as a reference to the unpleasant idea of forced conversions, which is, of course, a history that is not Muslim alone. So... kind of a play on words.

 

I certainly didn't mean, 'my god, what a horrible conversation we are having' :D My expressive sloppiness gets me every time

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A group of pagans can be slain and taken captive if some of them are slain and others taken captive.
I doubt this is the way it was meant. More likely meant attack and battle them, with aim to capture them... excepting of course any that fell in actual combat.

 

Also, the verse was written in regards to a specific town which had rejected Muhammad's rule.
Indeed, from what I know military action is avowed against what they perceived as unjust government and they certainly had a few lethal enemies. The use of more general appelatives in that verse is misleading, because it isn't meant against everyone not Muslim. Also notice how strikingly Ibn Kathir's version differs and how Dr. Zakir Naik points out one must read the surah from the first verse to understand it.

 

I only mean that this is a rather unimportant and inflammatory tangent that has nothing to do with whether or not religion and science are compatible.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. We've gone from the question:

Can Science And Religion Coexist Peacefully?

to the question:

Can People And People Coexist Peacefully?

:hihi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Christianity and Science have co-existed peacefully for several hundred years. In the 19th century, the Age of Enlightenment came to an end because critics such as Voltaire were thought to be tearing down our Christian-based civilization. The American uprising against the English and then the French Revolution scared people enough that both the clerical and the social scientists compromised so that our society and civilization could continue to thrive. They reached an unspoken agreement and Fundamentalist Christianity was watered down to make people "liberal Christians" and social scientists learned to rationalize around the old faith's antiquated doctrines to build a fuzzy consensus that has, to its great credit, managed to spread to the other faiths, bridge the gap between them all, and produce the UN, the "Global Community of Nations, and the Global Economy. But the compromise with the old faith that has ever since ended the growth of the science of social evolution.

 

Also, during the last half century, the accord between science and religion has been quietly breaking down. The Fundamentalists have partnered with the Libertarians to create a political block that has brought about a significan regression back to the old time faith. It is almost back in control of the public opinion it had before the Age of Enlightenment. We have to put up with that because our whole secular system has created a society that is rent with a multitude of social problems and has been unable to adequately bridge the gap between Islam and the rest of the world. This is a serious matter. Not only has our secular-science ideology failed to replace all or even any of the great (but now old and obsolete) religions and (Marxist) "isms" but is even slipping in its essential role of bridging the world's ideological gaps.

 

It needs to be replaced by a science-based ideology that can do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your general thesis, Charles. It reminds me of Sagan's, in The Demon-Haunted World.

 

I think you need to research your offered history, though, and cite references to support the end result. Statements like

Fundamentalist Christianity was watered down to make people "liberal Christians" ...

are contradicted by every credible history I've read, as terms like "fundamentalist Christianity" is pretty authoritatively documented as having been coined, then popularized by a several particular American religious movement from the 1870s to the 1920s (see, for example this wikipedia section), while the concept of a "liberal Christian" has its roots in 18th century European and American theology (see this wikipedia article). To a reader acquainted with the history and usual meaning of these terms, suggesting that the older of these ideas was a watered-down version of the younger doesn't make sense.

 

As a rule, theologists write a lot, so researching the history of religious ideas rarely lacks for documentation. The rigor of supporting your offered histories with such primary sources, is what distinguishes history from opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 19th century, the Age of Enlightenment came to an end because critics such as Voltaire were thought to be tearing down our Christian-based civilization.
This sentence is rather odd and also a bit ambiguous.

 

Voltaire is considered, without controversy, to have been one of the philosophers of the Enlightenment and even amongst the main ones; it is odd that you call him a critic of it. He lived in the 18th century (born a bit before it started even) so, if anything, people in the 19th may have thought he had been tearing down civilization (well before their time) but, even if so, I don't get why this perception would have helped to end what he was a critic of. Beats me. I believe Craig is right about your overall lack of acccuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...